Race, Gender , and Class

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
An example of a game where we (as players) don't currently have winning strategies is chess: we know that chess must have a winning strategy, because it allows only a finite number of game sequences. But nobody knows what a winning strategy might be.

But must a game be winnable for it still to be a) a game and b) subject to rational analysis? I understand that I'm maybe arguing strangely here - the reason for this being that I have a perhaps somewhat eccentric understanding of game theory, that is ultimately less about rational actors in determinate situations, and more about us occupying a pervasive universe of gaming that it is never entirely possible to reduce to a single game.

I'm afraid the opposite is true. Freud has gone out of his way to emphasise that the OC is not symbolic, that children really want to be incestous with their father/mother. One of the reasons for breaking with former acclytes like Jung was that the latter declared the OC to be merely symbolic.

As I understand it, the break wasn't quite on these terms. The issue between them was sexuality, certainly - but Freud's point wasn't that children literally want to have sex with their parents - which would make no sense in a context of pre-adolescence. It was rather that the original sexual object is the mother's breast, and that all subsequent sexual objects bear the imprint of this...
 

waffle

Banned
3 Body No Problem said:
Thanks for your exceptionally well argued dismissal.

Your remarks were dismissed as absurd because you presented them as a set of 'self-evident' assertions (eg"politics is clearly an instance of interaction theory") without even formulating an argument, expecting us to uncritically accept that 'world,' that the world is simply a 'game' (and can be appropriated and mastered accordingly), that not only is it formally computable, but that it can be reduced to a particular computable function (the equations of 'interactionism'). This is ideology, not mathematics (or, rather, ideology as mathematics).

I'm afraid the opposite is true. Freud has gone out of his way to emphasise that the OC is not symbolic, that children really want to be incestous with their father/mother. One of the reasons for breaking with former acclytes like Jung was that the latter declared the OC to be merely symbolic.

I don't think that is what Nomadthesecond was arguing; she wasn't directly quoting Freud, but referring to the contemporary conception of the Oedipal myth by such post-Freudians as Lacan, etc.
 

3 Body No Problem

Well-known member
But must a game be winnable for it still to be a) a game and b) subject to rational analysis?

josef k said:
But must a game be winnable for it still to be a) a game and b) subject to rational analysis?

No, not in the general framework of game-theory.

As I understand it, the break wasn't quite on these terms. The issue between them was sexuality, certainly - but Freud's point wasn't that children literally want to have sex with their parents

I don't recall the precise details of their split, but the quotes below seem to support my position.

S. Freud said:
  • Wenn man von J u n g hoert, der Inzestkomplex sie nur s y m b o l i s c h, er habe doch keine r e a l e Existenz, der Wilde verspuere doch keine Gelueste nach der alten Vettel, sondern ziehe ein junges und schoenes Weib vor, so ist man versuch anzunehmen, dass 'symbolish' und 'keine reale Existenz' eben das bedeuten, was man in der Psychoanalyse mit Ruecksicht aud seine Aeusserungen und pathogenen Wirkungen als 'unbewusst existent' bezeichnet, um auf solche Weise den scheinbaren Widerspruch zu erledigen. Freud, Zur Geschichte der psychoanalytischen Bewegung. Gesammelte Werke, Bd X, Page 110.
  • Ein besondere Hervorhebung unter diesen verbotenen Wuenschen verdienen noch die inzestuoesen, d.h. die auf Geschlechtsverkehr mit Eltern und Geschwistern gerichteten. Freud, Vorlesung zur Einfuehrung in die Psychoanalyse, Page 214.
  • [Die Psychoanalyse] erkannte, dass das fruehinfantile Sexuallebeb im sogenannten Oe d i p u s - K o m p l e x gipfelte, in der Gefuehlsbindung an den gegengeschlechtlichen Elternteil mit Rivalitaetseinstellung zum gleichgeschlechtlichen, eine Strebung, die sich in dieser Lebenszeit noch ungehemmt in direkt sexuelles Begehren fortsetzt. Freud, Die Widerstaende gegen die Psychoanalyse, Gesammelte Werke, Bd XIV, Seite 108.
  • Keine der Ermittlungen der psychoanalytischen FOrschung hat so erbitterten Widerspruch, ein so grimmiges Straeuben und -- so ergoetzliche Verrenkungen der Kritik hervorgerufen wie dieser Hinweis auf die kindlichen, im Unbewussten erhalten gebliebenen Inzestneigungen. Die letzte Zeit hat selbst einen Versuch gebracht, den Inzest, allen erfahrungen trotzend, nur als "symbolisch" gelten zu lassen. Freud, Die Traumdeutung, Gesammelte Werke, II/III, Seite270.
Sorry no time for doing/finding translations, just cutting/pasting from an old text of mine, written when I was fascinated by PA.
 

3 Body No Problem

Well-known member
waffle said:
expecting us to uncritically accept that 'world,' that the world is simply a 'game' (and can be appropriated and mastered accordingly),

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
  • I didn't say that the world is a game, I said that one can use game theory to model (aspects of) the world. That's a cruicial difference.
  • More importantly, you don't get the fact that games are not always 'masterable'. Even a simple game might be too complex to allow computing e.g. Nash equilibria. This is the technically astonishing, but not very surprising result of modern algorithmic game theory, see e.g. the aforementioned compendium on algorithmic game theory.


waffle said:
that not only is it formally computable,
but that it can be reduced to a particular computable function (the
equations of 'interactionism').

Bla bla! I've explicitly state to the contrary that it's unknown whether the world/physics can be described by a computable function. I am using game theory as a model. the real issues are (1) how to obtain the parameters for the model, and (2) how to do anything useful with the model (see the book on algorithmic game theory). These problems are not problems of game theory, but problems of that any theory of the social needs to address, including your peculiar mix or party-disciplicine & lacanianism.

I have pointed to the work of analytic Marxists like Roemer that do use game theory. Marx uses quite simple-minded variants of rational choice arguments in his descriptions of class formation.



waffle said:
This is ideology, not mathematics (or, rather,
ideology as mathematics).

You mean "mathematics as ideology"?
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
I'm afraid the opposite is true. Freud has gone out of his way to emphasise that the OC is not symbolic, that children really want to be incestous with their father/mother. One of the reasons for breaking with former acclytes like Jung was that the latter declared the OC to be merely symbolic.

Chuckle.

If by "really want to be incestuous" you mean "really have already cathected" I suppose you're almost there.

There is a literal component to infantile sexuality in Freud, but it is BY DEFINITION not "genital", i.e., not about INTERCOURSE.

The infant is in the oral stage remember? And the child is in the anal stage.

By the time the child has transferred his cathexis from the breast to the "mother" herself, the child is nearing the genital phase. (Remember, this desire for the mother, the transfer of cathexis from the breast to the woman, is ALWAYS REPRESSED. No one consciously thinks "I want to fuck my mother." That was my point.) If the child doesn't progress into the genital phase, the Oedipal stage is also not completed and the child/adult is permanently suspended there. But this is rare.

In popular culture, the idea about Freud and the OC is usually very simplistic and doesn't account for the repression of the desire for the mother, the cathected Mother object, into the unconscious. People who don't read Freud will say "he's crazy, he says you want to fuck your mother!" No, he says you have no idea that you want to fuck your mother.
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_und_Tabu

In Totem und Tabu beschäftigt sich Freud überwiegend mit der menschlichen Inzestscheu und anderen fundamentalen Tabus. Dabei untersucht er die Riten der Naturvölker, ihre Verbote, ihre religiösen Verhaltensweisen sowie ihre angewandten Taktiken und Heiratsmechanismen, die zur Vermeidung von Inzest eingesetzt werden. Freud bezieht sich in seinem Werk auf viele berühmte Forscher seiner Zeit, wie z. B. James Frazer.

Der Psychoanalytiker versucht eine hypothetische Brücke zu bauen, die die Entstehung des Inzesttabus mit den früheren und heutigen Religionen verbindet. Weiterführende Literatur von Freud zum Thema Religion ist Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion: Drei Abhandlungen (1939).

Weiterhin vergleicht Freud die Erlebnisinhalte von Naturvölkern und unseren Urahnen mit der seelischen Geisteswelt von modernen Menschen, speziell von Kindern, und Neurotikern. Aufgeteilt ist sein Werk in vier Teilbereiche:

I. Die Inzestscheu.
II. Das Tabu und die Ambivalenz der Gefühlsregungen.
III. Animismus, Magie und Allmacht der Gedanken.
IV. Die infantile Wiederkehr des Totemismus.

Der Schöpfer der Psychoanalyse vertritt die These, das Inzesttabu sei in Urzeiten entstanden, durch den Vatermord einer verstoßenen Brüdergemeinschaft, die durch Schuldgefühle und unter einem sozialen Zwang Regeln des Inzesttabus einführte, das sich im historischen Verlauf modifizierte und sich in mehrere Bereiche des gesellschaftlichen Leben manifestierte, vor allem in der Religion. Das Totem symbolisiert nach Freud den getöteten Vater, der durch die Scham und Schuldgefühle heilig erklärt wurde. Aus diesem Grund darf man sein Totem (fast immer ein Tier) nicht töten und essen wie auch Mitglieder des Totemclans nicht heiraten bzw. mit ihnen im sexuellen Kontakt stehen. Dies führte unter anderem zum Heiratsmechanismus der Exogamie. Inzest ist lediglich Göttern und deren Vertretern auf Erden, nämlich den Adligen, gestattet und nicht den Normalsterblichen. Das Totemtier darf nur bei bestimmten Zeremonien getötet und verspeist werden, diese Orgien stellen für Freud eine kulturell erlaubte Triebabfuhr dar, welche den verdrängten Vatermord und eine identifizierende Einverleibung desselben darstellen soll. Diese religiösen Zeremonien findet man nach Freud u. a. in der christlichen Religion, wenn man bei der Messe das Blut Christi trinkt und dessen Leib verspeist.

Freud meint, dass der Mensch während seiner frühen Ontogenese in abgeschwächter Form dieses phylogenetische Trauma wiederholt, was sich im Ödipuskomplex niederschlägt. Interessant ist, dass Freud zwar ein angeborenes Inzestverbot ablehnt, er aber annimmt, bestimmte, rudimentäre Inhalte aus den Erlebnisinhalten unserer Urahnen seien in der Psyche verankert, die sich in bestimmten Reaktionen niederschlagen können; wie etwa dass Kinder während der phallischen Phase ein überdurchschnittlich strenges Über-Ich aufbauen, welches die reale Androhung von Bestrafung der Eltern weit übertrifft. Freud erklärt diese Verhaltensweise evolutionär, da er meint, „der Vater der Vorzeit“ wendete mit Bestimmtheit drakonische Bestrafungsmittel an, er „war gewiß fürchterlich, und ihm durfte man das äußerste Maß von Aggression zumuten“ (s. hierzu Das Unbehagen in der Kultur).

At very least, what Freud means when he talks about the Oedipal stage and incest taboos is not as simple as "young boys want to have vaginal intercourse with their mothers." Obvs.
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
But what is the power here that we seek to analyse? Alzheimers?

No, the "power" that we seek to analyse here is the same kind you'd analyse about anyone else--what would X do if y and z were offered by A? Pick your own example.

The problem here is that Alzheimers patients, being neurologically atypical and unable to compute many of the basic functions most people do when they make decisions, would be very hard to predict/account for in game theoretical language.
 
Last edited:

Agent

dgaf ngaf cgaf
from what i understand the oedipus complex works like this (from Freud/Lacan's 'primal horde' myth): at an early stage in human evolution, pre-human acestors (cavemen, neanderthals, homo erectus) had no incest prohibition except from the primal father (or original lawgiver). The sons would try to have sex with their sisters but their father forbade it. However the primal father was under no authority, so he could have sex with the daughters, sons, whoever (phallic jouissance). the OC develops after the sons/daughters kill the father. with the primal father no longer around, the sons can't get it up anymore, the daughters can't get off. so we install a false social order (the ghost or signifier of the father, or non du pere) to replace the father. but an ideal sexual relationship is still impossible.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Right, the story you just laid out is how the "taboo" against incest came about, and why we all repress our incestuous desires (and find ways to reinstate the prohibition of the primal father) .

But the Oedipus complex is mostly described by Freud vis-a-vis the way it plays out developmentally in individual children in contemporary society...it's considered an important stage in development that is eventually passed through by the healthy child as they become an adult (when they enter into the "adult" stage in psychosexual development, the "genital" one).

What I originally meant that was lost in 3BNP's reply to me (and maybe not clear enough in my original post) was that there's a strange sort of sub-vulgar Freudianism that floats around the media that completely ignores the key role repression plays in all Oedipal relations. The infant/child doesn't say to himself "wow my mom's breast was nice but I see I have a penis and I'd like to use it to have sex with her instead"...the infant/child has no idea that a repressed desire for the original cathected object (Mom) plays an integral role in his relationship with his mother.
 

Agent

dgaf ngaf cgaf
it's interesting that the mother is only ever a partial object or fragment, never a subject. desire can only have an object but no subject. for example, the breast, or the mother's image in a mirror (this is what drives the Imaginary phase, which I guess would be roughly equated with the adolescent/anal stage in Freud's schema?) I agree the media panders to lower drives. I'm not sure if it addresses desire but drives for sure. It generates/produces drives in fact. You don't know you want something until you see it advertised, or at the mall, etc. i think we would agree that capitalism deadens the libido to some extent, or at least perverts it from natural objects onto images, products, celebrities, etc.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
i think we would agree that capitalism deadens the libido to some extent, or at least perverts it from natural objects onto images, products, celebrities, etc.

definitely...

displacement is a good term (I've plugged this here before but Stanzas by Agamben is really great on the origins of the fetish...and the lost object)

I think it was you who hinted at this in another thread, and I liked it--that there's no such thing as "thought" really...seems that there's no such thing as the subject, either...it's all a bunch of fragments of drives in a libinal economy where desire (always already excessive and therefore 'obscene') is always "paid forward"...seems like that anyway most of the time.
 

swears

preppy-kei
My friend took a degree in psychology at uni and told me about a genuine case he studied where a boy who started puberty freakishly early (at around age five) directed his sexual feelings towards his mother and would beg her to "play with his willy" and throw tantrums and hit her because she refused to do it. Nobody had taught him anything about sex, his mother certainly didn't encourage him and was shocked by his behaviour. So it goes to show you how sexual desire is focused on whoever's around before we are "socialised" or whatever.

Plus I sort of think the story is funny because I'm so immature.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
from what i understand the oedipus complex works like this (from Freud/Lacan's 'primal horde' myth): at an early stage in human evolution, pre-human acestors (cavemen, neanderthals, homo erectus) had no incest prohibition except from the primal father (or original lawgiver). The sons would try to have sex with their sisters but their father forbade it. However the primal father was under no authority, so he could have sex with the daughters, sons, whoever (phallic jouissance). the OC develops after the sons/daughters kill the father. with the primal father no longer around, the sons can't get it up anymore, the daughters can't get off. so we install a false social order (the ghost or signifier of the father, or non du pere) to replace the father. but an ideal sexual relationship is still impossible.

Do people think this is literally true, or what? Is it supported by behaviour in the other great apes - gorillas, chimps? Chimps wouldn't surprise me, they're right dirty fuckers. But the stuff about "...with the primal father no longer around, the sons can't get it up anymore, the daughters can't get off..." sounds weird: with Dad out of the picture, why would they be unable to get it up? Surely they'd be like "Wa-hey!"?

It's also worth mentioning that many societies, even 'primitive' ones, have very strong taboos against incest - in fact that's probably at least as common, taking the broad view, as societies where incest is condoned or encouraged.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
There's a partly genetic basis for the incest taboo right? Having children with immediate family members is not advantageous for the offspring's immune system, for instance. How does the psychological theory tie in with that? Is it separate or mapped onto it as a way of describing how the taboo / repression is structured in the psyche?
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
There's a partly genetic basis for the incest taboo right? Having children with immediate family members is not advantageous for the offspring's immune system, for instance. How does the psychological theory tie in with that? Is it separate or mapped onto it as a way of describing how the taboo / repression is structured in the psyche?

If there were some sort of "genetic" basis for the incest taboo, none of us would exist right now.

Many of the traits that are common to population groups are in part a product of a smaller and smaller gene pool existing in certain areas (such as islands like the U.K)...not all, but some. If you look at some of the tribes that have lived isolated from other genetic influences you see a strong similarity between people's features.

Until recently, people married their first and second cousins without thinking twice about it.

Swears, I think that story you tell is a good one. I actually have a young cousin who was born hydrocephalic and has some serious developmental disorders because of this. One of his problems is with pituitary overproduction, which his doctors believe brought on very early puberty. I sat for him a few times and had a few very uncomfortable exchanges where he was so innocent (at 9) as not to realize that you can't make your cousin your girlfriend (complimented my looks, tried to get me to sit on the couch with him so he could give me a "back rub" and asked if he could see my underwear...)

Mr. Tea, I don't know if it's meant as a literal account as much as a metaphorical one. I think the "can't get it up" part is metaphorical, it's about how in the absence of taboos against sex, many people are unable to be aroused. Doesn't it seem that the more restrictions we place on female sexual expression, the "sexier" most people think life is? Corsets, heels, elaborate courtship etiquette, plastic surgery, make up, etc. Or even on male behaviors? Aggressive, domineering, etc. A woman who doesn't shave her legs or pits, who doesn't style her hair or wear makeup, and who and wears a man's t-shirt and cargo shorts with timbaland boots isn't considered attractive, even if she's pretty.

Also, it's about how important repression is to our very ability to function sexually. If people really got what they fantasized about in every case, I'd wager it would be like pouring water over their libidinal flames really. If people were conscious of all their more destructive impulses or drives it would be difficult to maintain "civilization"...(see Civilization and its Discontents)

The primal father's prohibition against incest is sort of like the primal or "primitive" Super-Ego, before society was organized the way it is now where the Super-Ego is developed via very clear and strong society-wide prohibitions from both outside and inside the family.

P.S. I'm not saying I agree with Freud on this, btw...
 
Last edited:

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
If there were some sort of "genetic" basis for the incest taboo, none of us would exist right now.

Many of the traits that are common to population groups are in part a product of a smaller and smaller gene pool existing in certain areas (such as islands like the U.K)...not all, but some. If you look at some of the tribes that have lived isolated from other genetic influences you see a strong similarity between people's features.
Yeah, small gene pools, I know that, is obvious.

Of course there are other factors but I understood, and no doubt there are conflicting ideas about this which is why I ask, that it was not generally advantageous from a genetic point of view to breed with very close family members so the tendency to do so would to an extent be selected against.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, small gene pools, I know that, is obvious.

Of course there are other factors but I understood, and no doubt there are conflicting ideas about this which is why I ask, that it was not generally advantageous from a genetic point of view to breed with very close family members so the tendency to do so would to an extent be selected against.

But there might be political, social or economic reasons to do so. It's not for no reason that some societies promote inbreeding: it's that they do so because of extra-biological factors despite the fact that (biologically) it's a bad idea.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
But there might be political, social or economic reasons to do so. It's not for no reason that some societies promote inbreeding: it's that they do so because of extra-biological factors despite the fact that (biologically) it's a bad idea.
I know, other factors as I say.

I mean in the long run though, in evolutionary terms. In fact in evolutionary selection processes that would have largely taken place before we were modern humans or had societies as such.

For what reasons do some societies promote inbreeding as you say? Dynastic reasons? Still mostly against 1st degree relatives though aren't they?
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
European royals are all pretty inbred...if you look at all of the intermarrying between the same handful of families over hundreds of years...

There are certainly genetic reasons not to reproduce with your relatives, but sexuality isn't only about reproduction.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
European royals are all pretty inbred...if you look at all of the intermarrying between the same handful of families over hundreds of years...
Yes. This is hardly any kind of representative sample though. We know there are strong extraordinary factors involved there. And even though the gene pool is small there is still usually at least the notional taboo against doing it with close relatives.
There are certainly genetic reasons not to reproduce with your relatives, but sexuality isn't only about reproduction.
Right.

Um, so? In times before effective contraception sexuality will have been much more closely tied to reproduction.

So I suggested there was a partly genetic basis for incest taboo. That in the evolutionary process it has been selected for as being genetically advantageous. I don't think it's mutually exclusive with psychological theories.
 
Top