Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Quote Verbatim Quote Sic II

Welcome to Freud’s Eureka

Tabloids opened a vein of schmaltz
Galling the federal deficit

Freeing the one-eyed teenaged people-eater…

What did we care if the drift of drone
Cooked in its own palooka ?

We were notch babies doomed to freeze beaches—
Embroiled in vast cineramas of swag
Surrounded by brash fogies
Urchins of grinch

Love of the body politic
Is a sure sign of fodder
So Luger your weenie
‘N toast some cash

Y’old nipple vendors’ll
Tipple yer splendor a-plenty
Old galoshes a’cruisin’
For milk duds

New-by-no-means-nervy wait staff
Links me t’umbra’s deviance
Knobby shantz gone under
Double-press kazumas

Brash oaths’d kept’em all a-dither
Pepper melts, sheer gloss had fortune
Licking blind dice,
Bribes on the house

(Garish flanges, filthy Ganges
Last oper Andy:
Science me with sabre-toothed Woozels

Permit me on the lion stone
To soften your reliance
My old pal Fungo has just been pronounced
Mashed on arrival

Welcome to freud’s eureka…


jh said...

ernest becker wrote a binding critique one for which he was banned

did freud know more than boccaccio

the fact that people screwed was hardly news hardly moist at all

twice freud set out for rome twice he was rendered helpless by a mysterious apoplexy...he just couldn't get there..some weird castration phobia one would suppose

i find myself wondering about the countless virtuous men and women who saw fit to honor marriage in the most boring and predictable fashion

jesuits wrote moral manuals in the 16th-17th century which highlighted the scourge apparent on the skin of people living wanton sexual lifestyles new diseases brought over by the sailors and they likened it of course to the devil
i ask
would the fully sexually depraved of our day not betray the same sentiment

our medicine is a little better because of the need to control wanton epidemics stemming from the groin

nothing glorious nothing charming nothing beautiful has come from an "enlightened" view of the body
maybe we gussy up the filth with more pinache'

don't it always seem to go

knowing and honoring are thus not the same

reductions have a way of squeezing the air out of better thoughts

hollywood has titillated the american mind into a constant state of libidinal distraction
no wonder porn sells

we've a ways to go to virtue
it's only up over that hill
the hill opposed on the other side
and a wooded stream between that washes out to something finer still something finer still

12th century commentators on scriptures loved "the song of songs" more than any other poem

given a choice between honor and degradation in the flesh most humans would chose honor

sexual sin has always been regarded as the most ordinary thing in human nature...the place of failing is no stranger to the mercy of god

the good of sex can only really be discussed in terms of the counterpoint effort of man and woman and the probable but not necessary transferal of new life

when it is limited to self satisfaction it moulders

disease untold from freud's found gold

a contribution like skinrash

i dig the blathering style however


J said...

Early Freud, with the dream, repression and id-ego jive met the criteria of witchdoctor-ness.

Late Freud, of Civilization and Its Discontents and homo lupinus--eg, post-trench warfare, and a few months before the Anschluss----was a sage of sorts, however primitive or unsavory.

J said...

Paddy Jh--You're probably aware of the "Problem of Evil", so called. There are a few variations--the Logical problem of evil, or Evidential problem of Evil. Some replace "Evil" with "Unmerited suffering." STDs, which you allude to, seem to fit the bill of unmerited suffering, along with plagues, diseases, cancer, natural disasters, etc--and it's not just one instance (ie, the Logical POE seems fairly trivial), but...innumerable--ie the Evi. POE remains the a ...skeptical point, par exemple).

Isn't "God" defined as benevolent, as well as omnipotent? So, STDs, plagues, cancer (and natural disasters or all types) would seem to be compelling evidence that the definition's wrong, OR, possibly, monotheism itself is flawed (irrational, indefensible). It's sort of a trite point (ie "the best of all possible worlds" per Leibniz, mocked by Voltaire), but obviously God, if He existed, could by definition have eliminated STDS, black plague, span influenza, right? (and human disasters as well, ie wars). Unless one accepts some heretical view (something like manicheanism ,or polytheism) ....or rejects the premises of monotheism. Ergo, anytime you make harsh moral condemnations of people (like your STD point) you in effect offer a judgment of your own faith, do you not? And given the RCC's reluctance to embrace ...condoms, BC pills, etc as a mean of preventing STDs as well as unwanted preg.--until what, last week---in effect you offer a condemnation of your own church.

jh said...

mind you J
the church does not endorse condoms
the holy father makes an ex cathedra statement saying we could make a moral case for someone using a condom if it is a means or a step toward a greater moral consciousness about sexuality in general..he does not embrace the idea of condoms as a good thing per se

human sin
human culpability
human responsibility
the enlightened human conscience

the question is not rather does evil exist is it inherent in the creation of the world or do humans themselves create evil...
it is more given by those who follow the faith - are you conscious in your heart of your propensity for evil - do you see it in light of god's eternal mercy
- is perfection a value for the objective goals of human nature

J- you seem to place a lot of weight in the humanist social critique of religion and christianity in general - i can only say that it is impossible to understand it from the outside it would be like doing a personality assessment on someone you've never met or do not wish to meet - and then believing for yoruself that you actually know this person

the synagogue and the sanctuary defy easy sociological category

sexual ethics in catholic circles is defined by the sacrament of marriage - we cannot talk about sex without utilizing that paradigm - the other approach is celibacy but that has more to do with the understanding of jesus' life in its totality and not with sexual abstinence per se

it would be a matter of complete moral hypocricy to write about sexual morality in matters of non-marital sex- as if somehow we could acknowldge that whatever someone can get is OK - as long as they're being safe - the further a person is from the defining paradigm of marital sex the further one is from getting the moral imperative right the personal responsibility

the act and indeed the intention to act come under scrutiny

chastity is a value under which we seek to understand all human activity

again the pope is not saying yeah to the condom he's saying if a man (or a woman - a prostitute for example) makes the decision to use one as a moral imperative as a means of striving to understand the importance of the gift of sexuality in its essence - then a case could be made for the condom being morally neutral or benign - something which attends some growth in moral consciousness

of course everyone is going to go o wow o wow look at that the pope finally thinks a condom could be a good idea - everyone being too lazy to read what he really says

i'm always making judgements about my faith
there again
it looks much different from the inside

we are people on our way
for us all suffering evil and death is measured by a guy hanging on a cross

i would be interesting to consider how freud might've written civilization and its discontents today

J said...

sort of avoiding the issue

the question, or rather argument does suggest something like unmerited suffering, chaos, destruction (ie ...plagues) is inherent in the creation of the world, as far as humans go (is it evil when wolves kill elk? Not sure...), so one therefore assumes that a just, loving monotheistic God does not exist.

It's a philosophical question, however trite--Epicurus, I believe one of the first to bring it up, Hume, Voltaire says something similar, or Ivan Karamazov. Not merely "humanist" (in ways, anti-humanist, given say...evolution and a world far older than theo-tradition had suggested (but Im not suggesting evolution as a human psychology).

Recall Pat Robertson's comments on the Haiti quake last year and how the haitians deserved it: the idea that God makes people atone, punishes them. Happens with many disasters--including STDs--the ...most biblethumpers insist non-heteros with AIDS are being punished by JHVH. Gott moves in mysterious ways.. (did K. Olson say something along those lines).

And for those assume a judeo-christian God exists, they nearly are obligated to say that, aren't they? Others say, more evidence, grounds for doubt. God if He existed would create a world where children are not born with STDs, or wiped out with plagues wouldn't he?? It sounds a bit sentimental but a rather powerful skeptical point ( that one theo-person Plantinga takes it on....).