I have come to know from a source of authenticity that a wise man is someone who knows where to speak a word of wisdom, where to begin a discourse without fear of self-censorship. In fact, every space has its own unique discourse, in fact, each and every such a discourse remains centred around some specific demands to fullfil with, or anticipation to comply with, otherwise an alien discourse, with its sideffect, shocks and disturbs the marble conscience of the civilized men! Nonetheless, I dare here couple of days in a week to express on my wall, which doesn't appear be a sense of pragmatism, but I write what I feel, after each and every self-moving journey with an author of repute and authenticity. Though, I avoid any hypothesis or conjectures in the beginning, but at the end, what I write cannot be proved but felt; I don't know what's the urgency to prove anything or everything; or desire to reduce emotions in numerical value. In that way, I would like to ask, can somebody reduce my emotional trance into numbers?
Today, I have passed through the journey of Psychoanalysis with none other than the father of Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. His book, Civilisation and it's Discontents, was remarkable in the sense that it articulates an optimistic view on the growth of human civilisation, at the same time, Freud seems to be pessimistic about innate human nature, which is, according to him, aggressively violent, something attched to our death instinct; the destructive forces of our own psche which seems to be inseparable from libido.
While rejecting the Communist Utopian vision of human nature, Freud seems to be on a different journey to find out the 'Cultural Superego', in order to converge the guilty consciousness into the 'aim-inhibited love', emerging from the repressive desires of ego, at the same time, from a conflict between Eros and destructive forces, in his own term, 'the pleasure instinct' and 'the death instinct' in the economy of psyche. He finds a semblance between human's psychic journey with the civilisation, whereas neurosis appears as a unnatural consecration, after anxiety and remorse have burdened human ego, especially the way, a never ending conflict between egoistic and altruistic forces, which make the journey of civilisation complex, and burdensome. For him, it is 'sublimation of instinctive instinct' which plays an instrumental role in the origin and progress of civilisation. The foundational melody of civilisation emanated from the origin of family which got its non-discursive notes in form of 'love' and 'necessity'. Of Course, it was later on designed and rationalized in the name of, beauty, order, and cleanness. On the one hand, beauty and order were imagined through imitation games with nature, like cosmic harmony, however, on the other hand, cleanness was a novel idea, conceived in human mind, contrary to what was/is apparent in plant or animal kingdom.
The culture of no culture, which is fashionably known nowadays as 'multi-culturalism' has dispelled societal ego, or to say so, societal-conscience into Id (pleasure principle), moreover, the potentiality to know; what we are, and where are we moving, in fact, the reality principle, has lost in the 'fluid' stream of Id (Deleuze and Guattari). The modern day open culture could be understood as a 'mass deception', to refer Adorno and Horkheimer, whereupon the 'cultural industry' has outsmarted the human's capacity to resist against illusionary consumption based culture. People are running after the short term pleasures over endurable happiness. Isn't there an urgent necessity to revisit the ethical normativity afresh? Our journey is like a planet, moving not only in a singular path, but also moving away with the movement of stars. A Psychoanalysis of the psche of our human society can reveal what was repressed which needs to be unraveled, only then the human civilisation will absorb and channelise their discontents into no 'official love'. (Derrida, Of Grammatology) For we need to re-invent the moral principle, the Cultural Superego, while keeping in mind the 'banality of modern day evil' (to modify Hannah Arendt slightly).
Theologians, for example, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther, or John Calvin, etc., for that matter, are admired for their zeal to show compassion for the humankind. However, they have failed to live up to the mark, in eradication of guilt, in making the journey assimilative and happier. Afterall they were no serious materialist, though Weber has proved otherwise about Luther and Calvin (See, Max Weber, The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism).
There are at least two ways to write a note; a 'foxian' and 'Hedgehogean' way (here I'm referring the great political philosopher, Ishiah Berlin). A Hedgehog needs to be a genius, centred around one focal point, to the contrary, a fox likes to wander in wonder. I have chosen a 'foxian' path. There are many a things to caricature about this book. But the discourse doesn't allow me to move further. I'm resting my words here, therefore, to comeback again with a few passionate words. Good night Folks!
Comments
Post a Comment