Molding to suit others perception of you.

[Nightshade]

Im sure I mentioned somewhere else this lit antholgy I got my hands on the other day. Anyway I found this in it, and it got me thinking (isnt OCR capebilities great? )

"

Friendship may exist between people of opposite sexes, and it may even be exempt from any coarseness' (by this
hel means 'any physical contact, any physical desire'). 'Nevertheless, a woman always looks upon a man as a man, and .conversely a man always looks upon a woman as a woman.'”
What La Bruyere is driving at is that such a friendship must inevitably be interwoven and tinctured with coquetry in the proper sense of the word. The man and the woman, wishing to be attractive to one another, will each conform by subconscious impulse to the other's tastes and preferences.
Coquetry consists essentially in displaying, and consequently exaggerating, sometimes to the point of affectation, those qualities of heart or mind by means of which you think You can make yourself attractive, and dissimulating your other, qualities. It is a lack of sincerity, either deliberate or voluntary.

Anyway it got me thinking isnt this basically what we all do with everyone? try and make our selves more attractive by showing what we think people want to see?
Although the bit that throws me a bit is it says deliberate or voluntary surley they are one and the same?

But the point was more dont you think that- that mostly people put on an act to try and get people to like them?
and dop you think this is delibrate or a natural impluse.
:D

[The Unnamable]

Anyway it got me thinking isnt this basically what we all do with everyone? try and make our selves more attractive by showing what we think people want to see?
"I'm just an advertisement
For a version of myself"
David Byrne

[Stanislaw]

I think it is maybe a natural impulse...some people enjoy being around other people and consequently talk about soemthing that both parties would find interesting.

[AimusSage]

I try not to pretend to be different from who I am, I am who I am. Good and bad traits. If I show people what they want to see I would not be me. Never try to be who you are not, it will only work against you. The other person always has ways of breaking through a social persona. Better to be as close to yourself as you can be, but also understand that you might not always know who you are, and can still transmit a wrong message, despite trying to be yourself. An example of this is when a guy is interested in a girl and starts acting differently, trying to please at every wimp. The social persona that he creates in this example is radically different from who he is amongst friends where he feels comfortable.

The interaction between people is largely determined by their genes. (usually) Men are attracted to women, and woman to men. This instinctual behaviour is found in every social contact. Basically our entire society is based on what our genes tell us to do. Despite the layer of civilization, the primary goal of humanity is still to procreate. In our society with all it's rules, we all work toward that goal, subconsiously. It is certainly possible to go beyond this programming, and form sincery friendships with the other sex, but as it stand, the core programming is still what drives us instinctively.

In the animal kingdom, as well as humanity the males usually do the persuing, and the females the selecting. A peacock with the most impressive tail gets the female. With humans it is more complicated, because of these social rules. This means that men impress women not just with their looks, their money, or their ferarri, but we still try to show we have good genes. The woman uses all sorts of complicated (social) tests to see if a man is suitable. These range from asking a question, to certain behaviour that is to invoke a certain response in a male.

Real friendship between men and woman is prety uncommon, and while it is still burdened by genetic coding and instincs, these friendships are often based on acceptance of each other position, where the male and female accept unconsiously to not be compatible sexually to reproduce, and instead form a bond where they can assist each other with their core programming. On a social level, this means that they will share thoughts and advice regarding their love life. It is still possible to spark attraction beyond mere friendship, but is not likely to happen.

A more common form of friendship appears to be when either the man or the woman is (subconsiously)sexually attracted to the other, (or in love) but it is not returned. These friendships are not based on mutual acceptance, but on dominance. One person might be attracted to the other, but when this attraction is not returned, decides to still be around and be a friend, hoping to spark attraction.

Obviously there are a great many variations on this; degrees of attraction, social and cultural environment, genetic variation etc.

But this is what I think about it.

[Nightshade]

Humm yes but what I meant was that well take me for example, Night is a construct one of my better works in fact, andf Im pretty proud of her. But she didnt start that way at the beginging she was a mood but now I often find my self typing somthing and then deleting it or editing it to sound more like the night you lot know and its the same at work. Big smile no matter whatalways cheerful forever helpful when really Im not at all like that.

Anyway dont you act differantly at home with your family than you do out of it with strangers.
that the kind of thing I think.

[Stanislaw]

Humm yes but what I meant was that well take me for example, Night is a construct one of my better works in fact, andf Im pretty proud of her. But she didnt start that way at the beginging she was a mood but now I often find my self typing somthing and then deleting it or editing it to sound more like the night you lot know and its the same at work. Big smile no matter whatalways cheerful forever helpful when really Im not at all like that.

Anyway dont you act differantly at home with your family than you do out of it with strangers.
that the kind of thing I think.

Indeed, I understand this completely. At work, I talk differently when I am with a client, or my manager, or when I am chatting with the security guard. At home I also speek differently, I think possibly this is closest to my actual personality that only I know.
I use Stanislaw as a sort of melding of my personalities, a sort of mix, but with a titch more of me.

[The Unnamable]

Anyway dont you act differantly at home with your family than you do out of it with strangers.
that the kind of thing I think.
“Behind the shelter in the middle of a roundabout
The pretty nurse is selling poppies from a tray
And tho’ she feels as if she’s in a play
She is anyway.”

Lennon/McCartney

[AimusSage]

Humm yes but what I meant was that well take me for example, Night is a construct one of my better works in fact, andf Im pretty proud of her. But she didnt start that way at the beginging she was a mood but now I often find my self typing somthing and then deleting it or editing it to sound more like the night you lot know and its the same at work. Big smile no matter whatalways cheerful forever helpful when really Im not at all like that.

Anyway dont you act differantly at home with your family than you do out of it with strangers.
that the kind of thing I think.

I'll admit I got a little caried away there, the first paragraph was basically all I had to say. Aimus Sage as my internet persona is as real as I am, with the same basic characteristics as I have in the real world, although Aimus is little more extraverted. We all have multiple social persona.

In the real world, I try to be me, and let my social persona's be as close to the real me as possible. I don't talk the same way to my friends as I speak with a teacher. But it is still me at the core. With this it is the social environment that influences the behaviour. We behave like social cameleons, adjusting to our environments, to fit in. What I should have said is that I try to be myself as much as the social environment permits me to be. I often find myself not fitting in with a particular social group, because who I am is to radically different from their views.

Lastly, I find that if I keep up certain personas they become a part of me, and are reflected in my other persona. For example, the way I interact with a teacher would eventually also start to influence the way I interact with my friends.

[Stanislaw]

Yes...it seems our society breeds multiple personalities...even schizophrenia.

It's a little scary.

[AimusSage]

Yes...it seems our society breeds multiple personalities...even schizophrenia.

It's a little scary.

True, but I got used to it, and so did the voices in my head. :p

[Stanislaw]

True, but I got used to it, and so did the voices in my head. :p

we had a vote and decided so! :banana:

Actually...how often do you talk to yourself (In private or public)...I private I will talk to myself, for me it helps me think...well it could always be just me who does that too. ;)

[AimusSage]

I do not speak to myself in public, but I am known to speak to inanimate objects, like my pc esp. when windows is acting up again. :rage:

I also do affirmative talking in the mirror, it helps put things in perspective, break limiting thoughts and such. That would be a form of speaking to myself in private.

[Stanislaw]

I do not speak to myself in public, but I am known to speak to inanimate objects, like my pc esp. when windows is acting up again. :rage:


I know that conversation very well...somewhere between "please work for th love of god..." and "die you stupid @##$ !@#$@!#$ @!##@#@#$ @#%I%O# ##@$!@# :rage: " :D

I wonder how many people talk to themselves in general...I do it mostly when programming, or when thinking about something (so all in private) however, I know some people who talk to themselves all the time (but they're not crazy).

Is there a difference between 'thinking outloud' and 'talking to your self'?

[AimusSage]

I don't think talking to oneself necessarely suggests craziness either, it's something people do. (Like my dad :lol: )

Thinking out loud seems to be more focussed towards ideas rather than 'casual' conversation, which I would classify as talking to oneself. But it's a bit of a vague area for me.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Wouldn't it be fun if people actually said exactly what they were thinking for a day. Think of the conversations:

"Morning. Will you have sex with me?"
"Morning. Probably eventually, if you spend enough attention and money on me."
"I really can't be bothered to spend all day flattering you for a shag. Can I just pay cash now?"

and

"Morning boss. I can do your job 10 times better than you can."
"Morning. I know that. That's why I never miss an opportunity to put you down in front of my superiors."
"I doubt they notice. They're too busy laughing about your dreadful wig."

and

"You bastard! That was a far better shot than you're capable of. You got lucky just as I was catching up. I hope you miss the putt."
"I know. I'm only slightly better than you are really. But it really makes me feel good to be able to rub your nose in it yet again. That's the only reason I play with a wanker like you."

Lot's of fun for all - I think the murder rate would increase just a tad though. :nod:

[Stanislaw]

Thinking out loud seems to be more focussed towards ideas rather than 'casual' conversation, which I would classify as talking to oneself. But it's a bit of a vague area for me.

Indeed, I think out loud...but I'll ask myself a question out loud and answer it, so...maybe its a mix?

[Stanislaw]

Wouldn't it be fun if people actually said exactly what they were thinking for a day. Think of the conversations:

"Morning. Will you have sex with me?"
"Morning. Probably eventually, if you spend enough attention and money on me."
"I really can't be bothered to spend all day flattering you for a shag. Can I just pay cash now?"

and

"Morning boss. I can do your job 10 times better than you can."
"Morning. I know that. That's why I never miss an opportunity to put you down in front of my superiors."
"I doubt they notice. They're too busy laughing about your dreadful wig."

and

"You bastard! That was a far better shot than you're capable of. You got lucky just as I was catching up. I hope you miss the putt."
"I know. I'm only slightly better than you are really. But it really makes me feel good to be able to rub your nose in it yet again. That's the only reason I play with a wanker like you."

Lot's of fun for all - I think the murder rate would increase just a tad though. :nod:
:lol: maybe...but only if this was not the cultural norm. :D

[emily655321]

:lol: I agree with Stan. Sometimes I wish people would say what they really mean less often (me included). We all have that co-worker who always gives way more information than you'd like to know.

Talking to oneself: The only time I do that is when I curse, although that is frequently at myself. "You moron, what did you do that for?" Apart from shouting abuse, though, myself and I don't do much verbal communicating. :p I think of myself as very talkative, but have only recently realized that it remains in my head more often than not. You guys only get the pleasure of hearing what I think because it takes much less effort for me to type than it does to speak. :p

Okay, but the main question: Molding my actions to construct a public persona? I really don't do that. I'm with Aimus; there are groups of people I don't fit in with, because I am what I am, and I don't think I could be different if I tried. I tend to be quieter in public and around people I don't know well, but if I get excited about a subject I will rattle on and on and sometimes speak too loudly. Then people look at me strangely, and I feel stupid, and I make a vow to myself to never speak again. The way I am with you guys is probably closer to my real personality than anything "real" people see, although I think I'm much, much more polite in person. In person, I'm very sweet and most of my responses consist of a smile or a laugh. I sit at the edge of parties and am usually the one who runs to get someone an extra chair or clear dirty dishes from the table, and people are always asking me if I'm sad about something. The skill of idle chitchat has always eluded me, so I either talk too much or not at all. If I have nothing to say, I apologize for having nothing to say and then stare blankly for a while. I honestly couldn't construct an alternate personality if my life depended on it.

[Psycheinaboat]

I have a really big mouth and I start way too many sentences with, "I'll just be blunt..."

I think having the privilege of being a stay-at-home parent has helped cultivate this habit. I do not have anyone to answer to the majority of the time, and my closest friends tell me this is among my best qualities. Of course, maybe they are just telling me what they think I want to hear.

And I talk to myself all the time. "Extraverted" would be a nice way of describing me; “obnoxious” would probably be more accurate.

Is there something wrong that I think not having to hold a regular job is a major benefit in my life? I think I am happier not having to work. What a mockery to feminism! I suppose, though, the fact that I can truly make any choice I want is a true testament to feminism.

[blp]

Talking to oneself: The only time I do that is when I curse, although that is frequently at myself. "You moron, what did you do that for?" Apart from shouting abuse, though, myself and I don't do much verbal communicating. :p I think of myself as very talkative, but have only recently realized that it remains in my head more often than not. You guys only get the pleasure of hearing what I think because it takes much less effort for me to type than it does to speak. :p

Okay, but the main question: Molding my actions to construct a public persona? I really don't do that. I'm with Aimus; there are groups of people I don't fit in with, because I am what I am, and I don't think I could be different if I tried. I tend to be quieter in public and around people I don't know well, but if I get excited about a subject I will rattle on and on and sometimes speak too loudly. Then people look at me strangely, and I feel stupid, and I make a vow to myself to never speak again. The way I am with you guys is probably closer to my real personality than anything "real" people see, although I think I'm much, much more polite in person. In person, I'm very sweet and most of my responses consist of a smile or a laugh. I sit at the edge of parties and am usually the one who runs to get someone an extra chair or clear dirty dishes from the table, and people are always asking me if I'm sad about something. The skill of idle chitchat has always eluded me, so I either talk too much or not at all. If I have nothing to say, I apologize for having nothing to say and then stare blankly for a while. I honestly couldn't construct an alternate personality if my life depended on it.

'O wad some po'er gift tae gie us, tae see oursel's as aithers see us' - Robert Burns

Well. This is such an interesting subject. And emily, sorry, but not for entirely deliberate reasons, your post is the most interesting here.

Slavo Zizek says that the superego is always obscene. I won't mouth off too much here about Freud because it's not too clear in my mind and my own superego might have something nasty to say to me about it ('shut the f*** up you thick tosser. You have no f***ing idea what you're talking about.') But mostly, what people have said here about the things they say to themselves and the restraints they put on themselves, it sounds like superego stuff. The superego seems to act as an extremely harsh internalised version of an authoritarian society - our unconscious imagining of a that society rather than the reality of it. Of course real society, full of individuals governed by their own superegos, would hardly ever say such nasty things to us, except when drunk perhaps, or in a position of absolute authority. But perhaps we all quietly imagine that if the gloves were off, if people could say what they wanted to to us, it would sound like what we say to ourselves. There's a lot of imagining going on. It becomes difficult to know which is us, which is the other and which is just some imaginary entity and who's imagining it.

Most of the discussion here sees all this in terms of a duality at best: there's what we show to the world and then there's a real us. Freud sees it more as an unholy trinity: superego, ego and id, with ego the civilised face we present to the world and id the really irrational, wild stuff, sex and violence, defecation in inappropriate places, any kind of wrong social behavior. In the relationship between the id and the superego, we have absolute transgression and absolute punishment. Both are extreme.

One might say that what Xamonas describes is id stuff, but I think it's more complcated than that - so much more that I begin to get confused. It seems more to be an admixture of the id and the superego, the transgressive and the punitive. Untrammeled, both are actually inappropriate socially. The beleagured ego knows this and does its best to keep them both in check. Sometimes, however, the tricky superego finds a way to convince us that the time has come to 'kick some serious butt' or some other nonsense and we do something nasty. Or perhaps we only think we do and punish ourselves for it later. It seems the superego may be so punitive that it punishes us even for things it's done itself.

Still, difficult as all this is, what I love about it (at least my cod understanding of it) is that it releases us from almost certainly doomed to failure searches for our 'real selves' by showing them to us - all three of them, each equally real, however much they may be made up of wild imaginings; not one absolute, perfectly formed self, but three, riven with disagreement and contradiction. The task then becomes not to find some endlessly elusive grail of the true self, but to understand and manage these conflicting impulses.

Emily, sorry, I hope you won't take this badly because we're all prone to it, but what I find so interesting about your post is the way it seems to represent the contradictions and lacunae at work according to Freud's schema. You have the cursing at yourself, the superego at its obscenely authoritarian best, then the sense of yourself as talkative, which you've only recently begun to realise may be inaccurate - the ego flattering itself that it's putting up a good front to the world - and then there's the assertion that you are what you are and tough luck for the people it doesn't suit - the id essentially unapologetic, ready to scrap with any sod who gets in the way - except that then the superego steams back in smartly to make you ashamed of getting excited and talking too much around other people. You feel you couldn't adopt a false persona if you tried and it's no surprise since you're so much at the mercy of these conflicting impulses, yet even this isn't entirely true since you're managing to present a rather different picture of yourself here on the forum than the one you believe you present to the world and, as I indicated before, you're not presenting just one picture of yourself to the world anyway.

This is such an apt discussion to be having in a chat room where most people are probably presenting themselves carefully at best.

And look, there I said I wasn't going to go off on one about a subject I didn't fully understand and, oops, I only went and did it. **idiot! tosser**

[Sami]

Blp: Do you think that everyone does this in the same way? It’s interesting because the responses on this thread seem to be suggesting that various people present themselves to others in various different ways. I like the sound of this idea…

The task then becomes not to find some endlessly elusive grail of the true self, but to understand and manage these conflicting impulses.
… but it sounds pretty hard to get perfectly balanced (at least it is in my case). Do some people “manage” themselves better than others? Is it the case that some have a stronger ego, and others are more dominated by id? Is this a way of classifying different types of people (e.g. extroverts/introverts etc.)

[Sami]

This is such an apt discussion to be having in a chat room where most people are probably presenting themselves carefully at best.Also, I’m not sure that everyone presents themselves carefully in a chat room. In some ways you can be far less careful because many of the constraints of real life are removed. I wonder if people are far less polite to one another in forum conversations than they would be in other forms of interaction although, on second thoughts, maybe they’re carefully constructing an impolite virtual persona?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I think the point was that there is an opportunity to review and edit what you say in a chatroom which is absent from face-to-face, 'real world' interactions. If you don't think that your first thoughts agree with your persona, you can amend them. I would argue that not all do - but I certainly do from time to time - I try to catch all of the typos and the worst of my grammatical errors at the very least - and I have deleted whole posts because I felt I was being too aggressive, too crude, too personal, or sometimes because I realised that I had no idea what I was talking about!

It's not really that I am trying to portray myself as something other than what I am - my words tend to reflect my feelings on the matter in hand fairly accurately most of the time - but that I am trying to eliminate (as much as is ever possible) any ambiguity or possible misunderstanding, except of course when I wish to be ambiguous and misleading. ;)

[Sami]

Okay, Xamonas – I see what blp means. Thanks for clarifying. :)

[emily655321]

Emily, sorry, I hope you won't take this badly because we're all prone to it, but what I find so interesting about your post is the way it seems to represent the contradictions and lacunae at work according to Freud's schema.No offense taken, at all, blp. Who doesn't enjoy having a post dedicated to their own analysis? :D Well, maybe it's just me... but I did actually find it all very interesting. (Psychology is one of my geeky fascinations.) And, yes, I've certainly noticed the id-superego battle within myself on more than one occasion, though I didn't think of it in Freudian terms (a friend of mine once mused that it was almost like I had dissociative personalities, with one of them devoted soully to punishing/abusing the other).

So, what about you, blp? :p How do the regions of your brain usually end up presenting you?

[emily655321]

Is it the case that some have a stronger ego, and others are more dominated by id? Is this a way of classifying different types of people (e.g. extroverts/introverts etc.)This idea has really captured my imagination now. :nod: That's a very cool observation, Sami.

[blp]

Blp: Do you think that everyone does this in the same way? It’s interesting because the responses on this thread seem to be suggesting that various people present themselves to others in various different ways. I like the sound of this idea…

… but it sounds pretty hard to get perfectly balanced (at least it is in my case). Do some people “manage” themselves better than others? Is it the case that some have a stronger ego, and others are more dominated by id? Is this a way of classifying different types of people (e.g. extroverts/introverts etc.)

Well, as I say, I'm far from being an expert on all this. Who knows? I may have got it totally wrong. But no, I don't think everyone handles this sort of thing in the same way and the fact that they don't goes some way to explaining why there's such wide variety among human personalities. Just for a start, and I'm really going to have to check up on this, it seems to me that the superego, as authority figure, is probably created at least partly by our early experience of authority figures. Dunno though.

To answer the second part of your post and emily's about all this goes off in me, yeah, it's difficult. My ego tells me I'm I lovely, relaxed, funny guy, adored by all and the object of all fair women's dreams, but in reality my superego brutally upbraids me for almost everything I do, making me sour-faced, misanthropic, socially frigid and perpetually on the brink of rage. My id barely gets a look in. This probably sounds like a joke, but it's uncomfortably close to the truth. Still, the more aware I am of it all, the easier it gets to deal with.

[emily655321]

My ego tells me I'm I lovely, relaxed, funny guy, adored by all and the object of all fair women's dreams, but in reality my superego brutally upbraids me for almost everything I do, making me sour-faced, misanthropic, socially frigid and perpetually on the brink of rage. My id barely gets a look in.Sounds like my kind of guy! :lol: (Actually, it really does sound a lot like my boyfriend.)

[blp]

Sounds like my kind of guy! :lol: (Actually, it really does sound a lot like my boyfriend.)

:nod: There's a lot of it about.

[Nightshade]

Well I talk to my self all the time, "ah no what have you done now!" "oh greatr you broke the till "1+1" Actually that last one was one of the more embarrissing ones it was my first term in a new school and we had a maths quiz, and so im adding maths up and I always had to do it out loud so there I am saying what 1+1 out loud not noticing what I had said. Well that got a few odd looks from the people around me.

Actualley I need to talk out loud to myself at least when Im alone other wise I end up with a running commentry that just wont shut up And if youve ever been plauged at 4 in the morning by a chatterbox then you know how I tend to feel. :D


So its not the Id that says oh go one you desrve a choclate for not having one earler but the ego? :confused:

[The Unnamable]

maybe they’re carefully constructing an impolite virtual persona?
Isn’t this forum one big virtual theatre where we all strut and fret our hour upon the stage? Come to think of it, isn’t everything? Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Sami]

Isn’t this forum one big virtual theatre where we all strut and fret our hour upon the stage? Come to think of it, isn’t everything? Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Yes, the forum, and life in general can be seen as theatre. And, yes, sometimes it is tempting to lean towards the idea that it signifies nothing but, of course, not all things are equally meaningless - it doesn’t all signify nothing because that would give us a very easy way out of responsibility.

[Sami]

Blp: It would have to be the case that people handle this in different ways wouldn’t it really? I think your response offered a really interesting way of looking at the question of how we mold ourselves to others’ responses. I think that there’s sometimes an assumption that it’s not a good thing – that there’s a virtue, or a strength to knowing just who we are, and I am sometimes a bit suspicious of introspection if it means that we think we ought to be working things out only on our own terms to suit ourselves.
I’m not suggesting that this is what you were saying – not at all – I realize that you’re pointing to how we manage ourselves in relations with other people, and through our perceptions of them. That’s why I thought you had an interesting response to the question. Overall, it can often be a very good thing if we try to mold ourselves to suit others’ perceptions if this makes us kinder and more responsive.

[blp]

So its not the Id that says oh go one you desrve a choclate for not having one earler but the ego? :confused:

Um...dunno for sure. Like I say, it gets complicated. But yeah, that sounds plausible. I don't think the id is terribly reasonable at all really, possibly not even very verbal. I don't think it really looks for excuses, just rages around wanting what it wants. The excuse might be the ego trying to mediate between the superego (do not under any circumstances allow yourself this ungodly pleasure, you little s***) and the id (bwaaahahrrrwhgh!). I said before my id wasn't getting much of a look in, but, as is the way with these things, not even realising it myself, I lied. Actually, it's constantly on at me to lead an incredibly stupid, self aggrandising, d*** waving rock'n'roll lifestyle that isn't even remotely within my capabilities, either physically or financially, let alone of any great interest to me. Mercy. It's not easy.


It would have to be the case that people handle this in different ways wouldn’t it really? I think your response offered a really interesting way of looking at the question of how we mold ourselves to others’ responses. I think that there’s sometimes an assumption that it’s not a good thing – that there’s a virtue, or a strength to knowing just who we are, and I am sometimes a bit suspicious of introspection if it means that we think we ought to be working things out only on our own terms to suit ourselves.
I’m not suggesting that this is what you were saying – not at all – I realize that you’re pointing to how we manage ourselves in relations with other people, and through our perceptions of them. That’s why I thought you had an interesting response to the question. Overall, it can often be a very good thing if we try to mold ourselves to suit others’ perceptions if this makes us kinder and more responsive.

Yes, it's a very elegant solution. By setting up a three-way split, Freud seems to me to free us from a lot of hopeless binary argumentation - as well as explain a lot of the binary argumentation most of us go through so much of the time. Introspection, as you suggest, can be pretty pointless and, of course, that's the reason a lot of people are prejudiced against psychoanalysis. But if all you have as an alternative is blundering around destructively without really understanding yourself, it's not much of a choice. Similarly, a guy I used to work with was writing in the Guardian today, arguing in favour of shame. He's a theologian and he has a point, which is that we are not inherently good, much as a lot of new agey sentimentalism would have us think we are - could we but energise our chi with enough crystal healing to find it out. However, as a Christian, all he offers us as an alternative is a return to understanding that we're sinners and need God's help to be good. Somehow he managed to mention Freud, but skip right over the possibility offered by Freud's model that we're composed in a large measure of some pretty obstreperous warring factions, but we might have the capacity to institute negotiations and arrive at some satisfactory sort of détente.

[The Unnamable]

Yes, the forum, and life in general can be seen as theatre. And, yes, sometimes it is tempting to lean towards the idea that it signifies nothing but, of course, not all things are equally meaningless - it doesn’t all signify nothing because that would give us a very easy way out of responsibility.
Are you serious here? If so, I am reminded of something I said to Petrarch’s Love, “We have two sets of value systems – one for things like Literature and one for life. This explains why some people on here will enthuse over the profundity of certain ideas when they are encountered in Literature but hate them with a passion when they encounter them in life.”

Naughty Shakespeare – getting me to admire a tragic hero who doesn’t face his moral responsibilities. And naughty Unnamable for not taking very seriously the moral responsibilities of being a contributor to an Internet Forum. :lol:

[Nightshade]

hummm why is it all ways threes? Good angel bad angel and person super ego Id and ego.... That wierd dog 3. triangles so pyramids 3 water 3 :S

Actually Unnamble about the double standerds thats exacvtly the point so ideas are brilliant great as ideas but in practicality they are terrible awful things.

back to Freud so what- our ego makes us mold our selves in other peoples company to said other peoples expections of who we are or rather what we belive is the right face to show other people to get what we want and thus satisfy the Id while not embarrising the super too much?
:D

[blp]

Why you old kidder, Unnamable. You surely don't expect us to believe you hadn't realised Shakespeare was a dramatist, do you? Which is to say, if he'd had some sort of disclaimer at the end of his plays, it might have read: 'Opinions expressed by the characters herein may not accord with the author's own.' Regardless of what you think of Sami's response, Shakespeare wasn't even pretending to offer this as a fixed philosophical position, but as a character's emotional response to specific circumstances. Within the viewer's experience of the play, the question of agreement or disagreement barely enters in. Outside it, expressed as an fixed outlook on life (however impishly), it's a different matter.

[blp]

back to Freud so what- our ego makes us mold our selves in other peoples company to said other peoples expections of who we are or rather what we belive is the right face to show other people to get what we want and thus satisfy the Id while not embarrising the super too much?
:D

My learned counsel has advised me in no uncertain terms and with certain amount of swearing not to say a damn thing more about any of this until I've actually re-read the key passage.

[Nightshade]

hey I just thought I could probably go and grab my own psycholgy textbook out and look it up but its my belief that more breakthroughs are made by saying waht you think was meant and adding your own bit rather than staright referng to the greats or I could probably borrow what freud really said from the library again although I couldnt finish it and displayed typical behaviour when I got to athe bit that made me squeemsh and uncomfortable-sexuality and the chld or rather I think it was a mothers sexual feeling towrds her children that caused me to accidently missplace the book. cause you know no accident is ever an accident :brow: :lol:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

hummm why is it all ways threes? Good angel bad angel and person super ego Id and ego.... That wierd dog 3. triangles so pyramids 3 water 3 :S

...and if you turn a '3' on it's side it looks like the McDonalds 'M', which is a symbol of all that is evil (or is it a symbol of hamburgerology? I forget).

Perhaps if we all sit in a circle and hold hands and sing Donovan songs in whatever key we feel is right for us, everything will become clear and we can all move to California and live a life-long party with silicon women and free coke (the soda variety - I would never advocate the free distribution of illegal narcotics - that sort of thing could undermine the profit motive and lead to the downfall of western civilisation!)

Or was that another thread - it gets a little hazy at this time of night... ;)

[emily655321]

I think it was a mothers sexual feeling towrds her children that caused me to accidently missplace the book. cause you know no accident is ever an accident:lol: Yeah, that Freud... he had his share of "off" days, I reckon. :p

[blp]

I reckon he's having one today.

[The Unnamable]

Why you old kidder, Unnamable. You surely don't expect us to believe you hadn't realised Shakespeare was a dramatist, do you? Which is to say, if he'd had some sort of disclaimer at the end of his plays, it might have read: 'Opinions expressed by the characters herein may not accord with the author's own.' Regardless of what you think of Sami's response, Shakespeare wasn't even pretending to offer this as a fixed philosophical position, but as a character's emotional response to specific circumstances. Within the viewer's experience of the play, the question of agreement or disagreement barely enters in. Outside it, expressed as an fixed outlook on life (however impishly), it's a different matter.
This is where you and I differ. Yes, he’s just a dramatist but he puts me in the company of characters whose thoughts and feelings resonate with the stuff of my own life. For me the ‘easy way out’ is to practise the kind of detachment you just have – i.e. ‘these lines are great but they are only lines from a play and only relate to a specific circumstance/situation.’ So life is only a tale told by an idiot to a man who has forfeited all rights to meaning by committing murder. How neat and morally simple. Come on, there is a power and beauty about the ‘Tomorrow and tomorrow’ speech that are way in excess of what is necessary to serve merely as one particular individual’s emotional response. Of course agreement enters into it. I hear expressed the experience I feel based on the things I’ve observed. It’s a bit like that cartoon I posted a long time ago – the one where the man postpones hanging himself by noticing a book that he then begins reading. Some people look at it and think, “That’s me in that cartoon,” while others think, “that’s Unnamable/whoever”.

[blp]

Erm...well, in keeping with the general theme of this thread, yes and no.

I don't want to defensively make a big deal about how much I feel Shakespeare too, but those lines certainly work for me - frequently. Or always, if you like, as literature, and an awful lot in life in general and I agree with everything you say about their power, beauty and resonance. But still, they're the words of a character. That's not some weedy way of making them more bearable for me. It's just that other characters in Shakespeare express quite different views of life and they resonate with me too and that's part of what I find so brilliant about him. We might seem to be off topic, but this is sort of the point here - Whitman's 'Do I contradict myself, very well, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes'.

The reason I said the question of agreement or disagreement hardly entered in was that I saw it more as a matter of empathy. That said, I must admit, Sami's comment had a certain bathos to it.

PS, NB I never used the phrase 'just a dramatist'. ;)

[Sami]

Yeah, you’re both right, it wasn’t a thoughtful response. I won’t bother trying to defend it – should probably realize I’m out of my depth with something like Macbeth. :D

[Bookworm Cris]

Originally posted by Psycheinaboat:

I think having the privilege of being a stay-at-home parent has helped cultivate this habit. I do not have anyone to answer to the majority of the time, and my closest friends tell me this is among my best qualities. Of course, maybe they are just telling me what they think I want to hear.

Is there something wrong that I think not having to hold a regular job is a major benefit in my life? I think I am happier not having to work. What a mockery to feminism! I suppose, though, the fact that I can truly make any choice I want is a true testament to feminism.


Wow! I´ve found someone who thinks like me! And I was beginning to believe I was some kind of extinct pre-historic creature, a house-wife who "doesn´nt work" and thinks it´s a good thing.
Come on, we know how much we work! But undoubtedly the fact of making our own schedule gives us more choices than the people who are pushed from here to there, and by the never-stopping clock. And, to be sticked to the topic, we don´t have to wear a mask every time of our lives, because the people we interact most of the time are the people who really know us... that´s a relief. To have to "perform" every minute must be tiresome... And we have to do it when we are in a public environment... you simply can´t be who you really are in your job, with strangers, or in the supermarket line. People need to be someone culturally acceptable, "normal", and that is´nt wrong. It´s part of our culture.

I prefer that only the very few people whom I like really know me at all... than to be on a display window all the time for all the world to see me.