Blakesely-says-Burke-says that Freud was "adept at tracking down the implications of his own terminology." He posited his own interpretation of symbols, as the analyst, over those of his "clients" or his "patients."
I find it interesting that apparently for Freud, one symbolic means of interpretation is just as valid as another even if it comes to the dreams of another person. In the realm of the subconscious Blakesley notes that Freud cared less about what happened in the dreams of his patients and more about what language they used, and what symbol system they identified with in order to describe their subconscious. Freud laid his own framework of the Oedipal anecdote over the thing and called it good, defining integral principals of the feminine in terms of the negative, in terms of being the opposite of male or the absence of the phallus. Yes, I think this is what we would call a terministic screen.
In a sense, Freud's terministic screen was then imposed on a series of successive generations of people looking to understand the meaning of their own lives and those making an efffort to track down the underlying source of their own terms. Of course, his discoveries, aimed at a deeper understanding of human nature then in turn became oppressive.
If we are all making efforts towards the personal entelechy of own impulses and associations with our own "entelechial dog" are we at all being accurate in our discoveries if we have another person's symbology laid out over our own? Or is it possible as genre theory supposes, and that Blakesely asserts as well that invention comes not from a discovery of something new rather than it comes from it's own antecedent genre.
I come again to the conclusion that there are no absolutes, that all we do, say, think, suppose, happens deeply situated in our own experience and in the experience that we create in our own lives and culture.
I appreciate in this sense that Blakesely is advocating a "systematic tracking down of [its] originating terms" as crucial to a critical look at the forces which form us as the "symbol making" and "symbol using" animal that we seem to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment