Sunday, April 30, 2006

Child development

Freud talks about a natural sexual progression that everyone takes, starting of course with our mothers and sensual sucking, that being breast feeding of course. We then move to the anal stage, the genital stage (or self loving), and finally through social simulation we direct our libido towards a member of the opposite gender. Stalling out at any of these stages cause trouble, forming individuals that Freud labels as "degenerates". Now modernly calling a homosexual a degenerate is more than even a questionable thing to do, but we're talking about lat 19th century early 20th century upper class viennese/ german people.
So the child develops through these stages, they are probably taught by family or by school that certain activities are deemed as innapropriate. Thus if there is a "stalling out" at one of these stages, and the individual desires what society deems as inappropriate we suddenly are looking at repression city, and possible neurosis.
What I find most interesting is the question of why an individual stalls out at some stage. Traumatic events are one explanation of this. And I can't call any others to mind.

Vygotsky also talks about childhood development, but in a different fashion. He talks about the development of language and thought. So language is primarily a social thing, created for communication. A child begins to speek such that he can communicate to others what he desires. It is only later that the child turns this new found type of communication back onto himself. Then he begins to talk in an ego centric way, talking in an manner that he assums everyone understands but does not. Finally this becomes inner speech, or in my interpretation concious thought. Vygotsky is not very clear in defining what exactly inner speech is, because it is not pure thought, there are words attached, but their sound pattern is only sort of attached.

How do these progression at all work with each other? With language we move from the external to the internal. Society/family shows us speech and we pick it up for social reasons, it is only later that we incorperate it into our inner lives. With sexulaity, or the growth of the libido we move from the internal desire to the external manifestation there of. sort of.

So a thought, desires can not be repressed until we have the language to do so. Or one might say until we have to socialization to do so. Would it be reasonable to state that with inner speech comes thecreation of the super ego? I think this might be a reasonable thing to say. so inner speech is conscious thought and "pure thought" could be seen as unconscious thought.

so....what's my thesis about all of this?


so you can't forgive someone until you can figure out why they have hurt you or how. But sometimes it is equally surprising to find out that you've been hurt. how much of other peoples actions are something that actually slowly eat away at your patience or make you feel less valued as a whole?
and how do you change that in a positive way. You can't just go up to a friend and tell that that they way that they are hurts you, you have to track it down to an identifiable behavior. And what do you say then. 'You two have been my friends for three years and I feel like you don't value me or need me any more' 'Your vocal relationship ( perhaps self ritious approach to conversation about god would be a better descriptor) with god makes me feel undervalued as a person' 'your obsession with the future makes me despair about the present' 'Please include me/us in your lives again'. These are things that you want to say to someone, but would be devestating to say, and would probably make things worse. especially since these are people who I value being near me.
Or at least I did. Have we changed so much over three years? am I stuck in the past unwilling to forge ahead? I don't think that either thing is true. I also thought that I had gotten over being hurt by others self ritiousness, but clearly not.
So I'm not angry at anyone, just sad and hurt that I'm not important in their lives anymore.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

long time

It is hard to write for a blog you know that no one reads, but then you find yourself in a strange contradiction. If you are writing merely for the approval of others what does that say of you, yet if you are writing just to project yourself onto the vast infinitude of cyber-space then...why? one might as well just keep a journal, plus then one has the wonderful ascethetic of writing in a journal, hopefully with a fountain pen in a dimmly lit dustily appulstered library, or on some secluded knoll in the countryside. So....very british I guess....

Anyhow, I have been reading Freud. Some of his observations seem to be spot on, some others less so. I have been thinking about psycho-analysis, and I think that if you know the whole singing opera thing doesn't work out I would like to do that. Firstly because I think that I would be good at it. I am a good listener, this may seem cliche, but it's true, people who don't talk to other people talk to me. And secondly I think that I would like it, because I like theorizeing about why people act the ways that they do.

I don't actually have any interesting long musing thoughts to share at the moment so I will simply leave you with what there is.