who do you think you are relating to there? the speechifier or the speech recipient?
There is a deliciously, savagely ironic quality to this pain-machine, as
it operates by seeking to reduce tension in the human organism. Since the organism simultaneously experiences the reality principle as an intolerable pressure and also knows, at the level of the unconscious, that its identity nevertheless depends upon submitting to the symbolic order, it will seek to escape the tension that it is by various means of self-destruction. The famous pessimism of Freud's works of the Twenties and Thirties arose from confronting this hideous machine both on his couch in the form of individual psychopathologies and in the surrounding European culture, which had thrown itself into a hellish war whose only rationale, Freud conjectured, could be found in a libidinal impulse towards auto-annihilation. Micro and macro Thanatos, the death drive manifested in individual neurosis and species level suicide.
Now, in analysing the tendency of human beings to destroy themselves, Freud is much more ready to count himself as the successor of Nietzsche than of Spinoza. Freud was enthused by Nietzsche's psychology of anthropoid self-laceration, and these analyses, as presented in their most developed form in The Genealogy of Morals, also prove indispensable to Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus.
These are the most important passages in Nietzsche's writings, and certain other of Nietzsche's most significant ideas - especially his idea of motivational analysis, that we should look to the philosopher for the key to the philosophy - feed into the psychonalytic truism that there is no 'objectivity'; in other words, there is no libidinal neutrality, everything that we want has designs upon us.
Yeah fantasies are socially constructed to a degree. But there's also something else in there that isn't. So what's that part and why does it hinge around the same archetypal figures and situations across civilasations and history?
Human behaviour tends to go down the same avenues. Same categories recur wherever fantasies are freely expressed.
I'm not saying that we are born with specific fantasies in our heads that has nothing to do with the cultural conditions, but that we are born with possibilities of certain ideas. Psychic potentialities given to us by evolutionary development.
That's why mythological figures and situations echo throughout history of creative expression. The myths weren't some primordial image handed down from above for human behavior to imitate. They were more like primary coagulation of the same sensibilities that are afforded to us.
The tracks aren't laid out for us, but we tend to go down the same ones, which is why they look like tracks. Psychic residue of cultural history.