Hello Waybread,
re yours: Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:18 pm
It is really quite irrelevant to my reasoning if there is any validity to Freud's particular theory of childhood sexuality, or if this was really nothing more than a cover-up for abuse in respectable middle class family. Overall, the theory surrounding the Oedipus complex etc. seems quite dubious to me, I'd agree it's baloney. But I haven't studied Freudian psychology per se to any depth, and didn't mention it in this context in the first place, so I will leave the topic at that.
So we both agree that childhood sexuality as such exists. That evaluation and self-constraint of sexual behaviour also start in childhood, where so many of our later behavioural patterns are laid out, seems a logical assumption. Depending on the individual and their particular circumstances, the results can be guilt, shame, repression, and sexual neurosis. Wilhelm Reich thought of this as happening on a collective scale.
There is of course no doubt that ? more than anything else ? sexual abuse of children causes severe traumas and sexual disturbances difficult to heal.
All right, let's look at some of your comments now.
Waybread wrote:
The more I think about Meyers's position, the less tenable it seems. As an American (even in the gun-happy South,) he benefits from living in a reasonably well-regulated society with a system of laws and ethical codes that limit the probability of a lot of really nasty things happening to him. Maybe life in northern Nigeria would be preferable, given the great opportunities for spiritual growth offered to those kidnapped (and still missing) school girls.
Waybread, really... There is
nothing preferable over something else!
In fairness, it would be best if Eric could reply to these comments by himself, and I encourage him to join the discussion, if Chris has suggested it to him.
Libido is only one motivating factor in human behaviour, not the only one or necessarily even the primary one. Old guys do slow down considerably in their sexual urges, incidentally.
That's exactly because their vital force is decreasing! The Chinese tradition (Hi, Ming!) agrees with this. In an identical conception, the so-called primary ch'i is stored in the kidneys and closely linked with the sexual organs. But feel free to let this sort of comment alone, please!
Michael, I don't know what universe you live in.
Oh, that's a tough one. I'm still trying to figure it out myself.
Do you have children?
No, not so far. (At least not to my knowledge.)
That may be because I'm (arguably) a barren sign...
As the mother of two (adult) children, I never taught them not to touch parts of their bodies in public or private. I guess they sort of figured it out.
All the better!
Girls and boys both need to be taught some type of restraint. Even in this sexually liberated era, young girls can still get pregnant, acquire STDs that can lead to serious reproductive health issues later, ...
Yes, there can be good reasons for Saturnian restraints sometimes. One of them being that wondrous invention called the condom...
... and commit suicide when their classmates start calling them the nasty names for sexually active girls, on Facebook.
Why don't you teach them to erect defensive Saturnian walls to the insults of those stupid philistines?
I don't know what "bad personal experiences" you have in mind for me, as I never had a baby taken away for adoption, and thankfully my real career began after the early-sixties era of sexist psycho-babble. However, it didn't take much to be observant.
I see... I guess I mistook your overall humanistic concern for personally suffered damage, then.
Yes, culture does shape people in the most basic ways. We have several different disciplines called social sciences (such as sociology) with a huge archive of solid research on the role of one's culture in personal development. This isn't to deny individuality by any means, but it is to say that you, Michael, are in large part a product of your ethnicity or nationality, socio-economic class, gender, age, and so on.
I don't deny this ? certainly,
Hollywood culture played an important part in the earlier stages of my development! What I don't agree with is that cultural influences affect our basic instinctual drives very much, other than containing them. Culture is in a way antithetical to Nature. This can take on the form of various kinds of repressions.
Joining a counter-culture or taking a contrarian view doesn't change this. Have you ever noticed how members of "rebel" groups tend to dress alike? Prefer the same sort of music, and so on? People are social animals.
No doubt. Uranian revolution is always followed by new structure - for better or worse.
You want to be very, very careful in generalizing about Muslims, who comprise about 1/4 of the world's entire population.
I agree, generalizations should be avoided. I simply think that the sexual restriction quite typical of Islamic (as well as other) societies contributes to problems like rape and domestic violence. Speaking from personal therapeutic experience with doers as well as victims.
But by Meyers's calculus, condemning them for sexual repression lives within the "Saturn wall" in which there is no good or bad: things just happen.
Personally, I don't condemn anybody, I only observe and apply my psycho-logic. Nor do I subscribe to Eric's outlook without substantial reservations.
I'm glad we found some points of agreement, Michael.
I'm not sure how it would affect the bets they are making on us over on the Sport&Speculation forum (or so I have heard) but I agree with you on this, too, Waybread!
Hey, trust me.
Would I be talking with you otherwise...
Re yours: Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:18 pm
This where the whole past-lives karma trope gets ugly. But not just karma, because Juaism and Christianity haven't done such a great job with theodicy (the problem of how a just and loving God permits evil things to happen to innocent children.)
This sounds an awful lot as if you are making a generalization about 1/3 of the world population...
I would maintain that a sound concept of reincarnation can be helpful in explaining and releasing certain hardships. What impressed me as a philosophically more sophisticated view of the topic is the one presented in the Seth books channelled by Jane Roberts.
Of course, I can see the benefit in not dwelling on horrid events in our pasts. If somebody does something despicable to me, that's one type of harm. If I obsess with it the rest of my life, then I'm harmed twice, the second time by myself.
Wisely spoken, Waybread.
But the problem with evolutionary astrology is that there is a bigger picture or bigger pie in which relinquishing one's grievances occurs. This is only one slice.
Agreed.
We need to think more about how societies function as a whole, and how to create societies in which little kids do not get violated; a world in which we acknowledge more reality and less imaginative constructs of the solar system.
You mean, let's get down to nitty-gritty social enhancement efforts rather than wasting time on stupid astrology? Why can't we have one as well as the other?
Not all of us have Aquarius written all over their banner! But for that matter... The alternative movement of the sixties which revolutionized Western society is interwoven with the New Age movement. The latter evolved to an important degree around Theosophist authors like Alice A. Bailey and Dane Rudhyar.
Oops, it looks like I can't help engaging with you!
Michael
