mark Jabbour's Blog - Posts Tagged "freud"
Somebody to love - seriously, is there any other topic?
this is old but relevant
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Sigmund Freud believed that insight and interpretation were the keys to unlocking human potential, and freeing the mind from the restraints of hysteria and dementia praecox, what we now call neurosis and psychosis, that inhibit or prevent love and work. As a therapist he was mostly unsuccessful, not because he was wrong about the healing properties of insight and interpretation—but because of his intransigence regarding his theory of sexual energy, aka, The Oedipus Complex, as the sole cause of psychological and emotional problems. In short—his interpretations were often wrong. He was successful as a therapist when he abandoned his own doctrine of belief and methodology, and instead was open, warm, and affectionate with his patients. Of course, this behavior was predicated upon the person falling in love with him.
Love heals. Love is a natural state. We are all born with the capacity for, and indeed, the expectation of love. Healthy love is a behavior that engenders wellbeing. We all need it to thrive.
Everybody needs somebody to love.
The problem is, as with many things,iiiiiiiiiiikiu99999999999 [the cat on the keyboard:] is that love is conditional—meaning it can be unlearned. And instead of being reciprocal, can be replaced by an abusive, self-serving hierarchy. This distortion of love sucks love from those below, passes on through the subject, and then is deposited (in the form of worship) to those above. Sound familiar?
Let me clarify who I am. I am a fiction writer—writing about the human condition. In the writing of fiction I am subservient to no one's interpretation (including the Authority) of the "facts." I am free to put forth my own interpretation of truth and let that stand, or fall, on its own validity. I am formally educated in Anthropology, Psychology, and Social Work. I have worked in the Field with abandoned, neglected, and/or abused children and young adults, all of them hostile, some aggressive, and some violent. And, I have never ceased learning. My curiosity is almost infinite.
I think I know what love is.
Love cannot be faked, but it can be distorted, abused, and misrepresented. It is not possible to love fully and completely without being loved fully and completely. Love is reciprocal. If you, like I, have had it stolen from you—it is very difficult to get it back. To do so, you must enter into a non-abusive relationship, a loving one such as the therapeutic interaction that Freud sometimes, inadvertently, fell into with his patients and colleagues.
There are five elements to the successful recovery, or discovery, of your loving Self:
1) There must be collaboration between partners (not a hierarchy) to fight against anti-love.
2) Together you must identify unhealthy situations and patterns of behavior.
3) Together you must strive to stop and/or block those situations and behaviors.
4) Together you must make a commitment to change.
5) Together you must begin to practice new loving behaviors.
These five elements aren't necessarily, and probably never will be, in sequence, with the exception of the first one. They will develop within and as, a spiral. Some of you may recognize this as the ideal therapeutic relationship. It is, but it's truly hard to find. I think it is as likely as not to be found in the relation understood as friendship. Outside of the restrictions of the professional practitioner/client interaction, that partnership is free to advance to a sexual/romantic one. Within the pay-for-service relationship, the partnership must dissolve and a clean break be made. Unfortunately, this could cause a retraumatism, because of the separation and loss, and start the cycle over again.
So, who am I to say all this? I am not your therapist. I am not a man of faith. (I am an atheist.) I am not a self-help guru or a doctor. I am not your grandfather, father, or brother. I am simply a friend—who like you—is looking for somebody to love.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Sigmund Freud believed that insight and interpretation were the keys to unlocking human potential, and freeing the mind from the restraints of hysteria and dementia praecox, what we now call neurosis and psychosis, that inhibit or prevent love and work. As a therapist he was mostly unsuccessful, not because he was wrong about the healing properties of insight and interpretation—but because of his intransigence regarding his theory of sexual energy, aka, The Oedipus Complex, as the sole cause of psychological and emotional problems. In short—his interpretations were often wrong. He was successful as a therapist when he abandoned his own doctrine of belief and methodology, and instead was open, warm, and affectionate with his patients. Of course, this behavior was predicated upon the person falling in love with him.
Love heals. Love is a natural state. We are all born with the capacity for, and indeed, the expectation of love. Healthy love is a behavior that engenders wellbeing. We all need it to thrive.
Everybody needs somebody to love.
The problem is, as with many things,iiiiiiiiiiikiu99999999999 [the cat on the keyboard:] is that love is conditional—meaning it can be unlearned. And instead of being reciprocal, can be replaced by an abusive, self-serving hierarchy. This distortion of love sucks love from those below, passes on through the subject, and then is deposited (in the form of worship) to those above. Sound familiar?
Let me clarify who I am. I am a fiction writer—writing about the human condition. In the writing of fiction I am subservient to no one's interpretation (including the Authority) of the "facts." I am free to put forth my own interpretation of truth and let that stand, or fall, on its own validity. I am formally educated in Anthropology, Psychology, and Social Work. I have worked in the Field with abandoned, neglected, and/or abused children and young adults, all of them hostile, some aggressive, and some violent. And, I have never ceased learning. My curiosity is almost infinite.
I think I know what love is.
Love cannot be faked, but it can be distorted, abused, and misrepresented. It is not possible to love fully and completely without being loved fully and completely. Love is reciprocal. If you, like I, have had it stolen from you—it is very difficult to get it back. To do so, you must enter into a non-abusive relationship, a loving one such as the therapeutic interaction that Freud sometimes, inadvertently, fell into with his patients and colleagues.
There are five elements to the successful recovery, or discovery, of your loving Self:
1) There must be collaboration between partners (not a hierarchy) to fight against anti-love.
2) Together you must identify unhealthy situations and patterns of behavior.
3) Together you must strive to stop and/or block those situations and behaviors.
4) Together you must make a commitment to change.
5) Together you must begin to practice new loving behaviors.
These five elements aren't necessarily, and probably never will be, in sequence, with the exception of the first one. They will develop within and as, a spiral. Some of you may recognize this as the ideal therapeutic relationship. It is, but it's truly hard to find. I think it is as likely as not to be found in the relation understood as friendship. Outside of the restrictions of the professional practitioner/client interaction, that partnership is free to advance to a sexual/romantic one. Within the pay-for-service relationship, the partnership must dissolve and a clean break be made. Unfortunately, this could cause a retraumatism, because of the separation and loss, and start the cycle over again.
So, who am I to say all this? I am not your therapist. I am not a man of faith. (I am an atheist.) I am not a self-help guru or a doctor. I am not your grandfather, father, or brother. I am simply a friend—who like you—is looking for somebody to love.
Louis C K & the fiction writer
What do Louis C. K., stand up comic, & The Fiction Writer have in common? I just watched LCK's latest stand up show: "Live at the Beacon Theater" via my MacBook, in my own home, Saturday night, for five bucks, and I was grinning from ear to ear even before he got into the part about smoking the new, not the old, weed, which made me, that's right! Right as rain, you bet, made me - pause the show - reach over to the end of my desk and open up my little stash box and get out my little gray pipe and slide into its little bowl a pinch of Purple Haze, and then ... find and strike a match and put the fire to the pot and then ... breathe in slowly and then ... I unpaused the show and laughed until my cheeks hurt.
I have been watching, and listening to, Louis C. K. for exactly a year. Ever since Jake turned me on to him on a road trip across the high desert and I remember saying to Jake, "No way that dude stays married," and Jake says, "He's not. He got divorced last year." And you know how I knew? Because this guy, Louis C. K., was speaking truth to power--the power of pussy. And I know that sounds crude but if you watch LCK's routines you'll know exactly what I mean. There just isn't any way a woman is going to be/remain with that man because when he's on stage, and also now in his serial TV show on FX, he says things about men and women and children that nobody has dared say out loud before but are mostly true and because it's Comedy he can deny it and say "just kidding." Which Freud discovered was never true - that a person is kidding when they say 'just kidding.' It is the same with the best fiction writers, who can tell the way things really are, because it is only Fiction. Hunter Thompson said, "Fiction is a bridge to the truth that journalism can't reach." He said that a long time ago, knew it, and that probably launched his, at the time, ground breaking "Gonzo Journalism." Which blew the lid off the lies that politicians have had to push to please the people that profess they want the truth - but everyone knows - not really, because reality and honesty isn't flattering. That it's not really feel-good, I'm-looking-out-for-you, I love you actual fact and it's often better to lie if you can get away with it than not. Which puts some of us "folks" who are cursed/blessed with the ability to see things the way they really are, and whose denial and self-deception mechanism came somehow unhooked, in a bind. Because, believe it or not, we "folks" still get lonely and need a little nooky so have had to come up with ways we can get some, and also - some respect and some money so ... we write comedy and stories about what we see and tell everyone, "It's Not True. I just made that shit up. You didn't think I was talking about You. Did you? Nooo, no. I was just kidding." So LCK puts up the disclaimer that his TV show, which stars a character named Louis C. K. played by him, is not him, and any resemblance to him, or anyone else also, is merely coincidence. And David Foster Wallace writes in The Pale King: "The Pale King is basically a nonfiction memoir, with additional elements of reconstructive journalism, organizational psychology, elementary civics and tax theory, ..." (pg. 73) and " ... this right here is me as a real person, David Wallace, age forty, ... . All of this is true. This book is really true." (pg. 66-67) " The only bona fide 'fiction' here is the copyright page's disclaimer-- ... ." But of course, no one believes him and then they ask: "Why did he kill himself, when he had a wife who loved him, and so many friends, and money and success, and, and ... ?" Watch the episode of Louis with Eddie, where Eddie is a failed stand-up comic off on a final binge before offing himself and tell me if you think it's funny, or not true, and LCK is just kidding. Seriously, this guy is funny and dead on.
But like Wallace, he's not for everyone, because, like Wallace his fiction tells his story truthfully and for most people - that's just too much truth to take.
December 14, 2011
I have been watching, and listening to, Louis C. K. for exactly a year. Ever since Jake turned me on to him on a road trip across the high desert and I remember saying to Jake, "No way that dude stays married," and Jake says, "He's not. He got divorced last year." And you know how I knew? Because this guy, Louis C. K., was speaking truth to power--the power of pussy. And I know that sounds crude but if you watch LCK's routines you'll know exactly what I mean. There just isn't any way a woman is going to be/remain with that man because when he's on stage, and also now in his serial TV show on FX, he says things about men and women and children that nobody has dared say out loud before but are mostly true and because it's Comedy he can deny it and say "just kidding." Which Freud discovered was never true - that a person is kidding when they say 'just kidding.' It is the same with the best fiction writers, who can tell the way things really are, because it is only Fiction. Hunter Thompson said, "Fiction is a bridge to the truth that journalism can't reach." He said that a long time ago, knew it, and that probably launched his, at the time, ground breaking "Gonzo Journalism." Which blew the lid off the lies that politicians have had to push to please the people that profess they want the truth - but everyone knows - not really, because reality and honesty isn't flattering. That it's not really feel-good, I'm-looking-out-for-you, I love you actual fact and it's often better to lie if you can get away with it than not. Which puts some of us "folks" who are cursed/blessed with the ability to see things the way they really are, and whose denial and self-deception mechanism came somehow unhooked, in a bind. Because, believe it or not, we "folks" still get lonely and need a little nooky so have had to come up with ways we can get some, and also - some respect and some money so ... we write comedy and stories about what we see and tell everyone, "It's Not True. I just made that shit up. You didn't think I was talking about You. Did you? Nooo, no. I was just kidding." So LCK puts up the disclaimer that his TV show, which stars a character named Louis C. K. played by him, is not him, and any resemblance to him, or anyone else also, is merely coincidence. And David Foster Wallace writes in The Pale King: "The Pale King is basically a nonfiction memoir, with additional elements of reconstructive journalism, organizational psychology, elementary civics and tax theory, ..." (pg. 73) and " ... this right here is me as a real person, David Wallace, age forty, ... . All of this is true. This book is really true." (pg. 66-67) " The only bona fide 'fiction' here is the copyright page's disclaimer-- ... ." But of course, no one believes him and then they ask: "Why did he kill himself, when he had a wife who loved him, and so many friends, and money and success, and, and ... ?" Watch the episode of Louis with Eddie, where Eddie is a failed stand-up comic off on a final binge before offing himself and tell me if you think it's funny, or not true, and LCK is just kidding. Seriously, this guy is funny and dead on.
But like Wallace, he's not for everyone, because, like Wallace his fiction tells his story truthfully and for most people - that's just too much truth to take.
December 14, 2011
