martes, septiembre 28, 2010




It’s frightening to realize that something so fundamental that people pursue as if it had to do with life or death is so fragile, that as you say changes with a “twinkling of an eye”. As this is the norm and not the exception, where one literally “lives for others”, not altruistically speaking but instead with pure vanity that looks for public approval that other-defines us. Essentially “We are the rest” is politically correct then, even holistically speaking in new age terms. Everyone agrees on this, is the funny thing. The paradox is that I am achieving distinction (identified as one, superior, chick or sofisticated) but from the eyes of another-other’s. This is an external illusion that I think is not part of the “nature of man”, as Adams says. Why?

I think the desire to be superior stated by Adler, is about establishing oneself as a goal or image within a certain reference, context or paradigm, that makes us feel resolves the uncertainty we feel but doesn’t have a place (the real emptiness). To elaborate this emptiness we “figure” it as inferiority, positioned in same context or paradigm, to have a sense to “overcome” one with the other, both in the same context, the antithesis that justifies the thesis in Nietzsche’s terms. Basically dualistic thinking operates with this logic I guess. This is what makes us fight for position in the social paradigm for example. So I think the problem then, is not what we desire to be or see ourselves as in the eyes of others (illusions of many kind), but the form we give to our fears, to make us think we can resolve them with those illusions. In Spanish a good example: “El ideal del yo es el problema y no el yo ideal” dice Lacan.

8 comentarios:

Bioluz dijo...

Sin duda el deber ser puede aproblemar, aunque también lo colectivo e ideal aquejar, todo está en cómo y desde donde se suela mirar, consultar.

Lamentable-mente, no sé inglés, así que sólo tome la cita que expusiste, ya que el Psicoanálisis siempre me es interesante.

relmuche dijo...

Dear Mr. Berman:

I believe that:

• All us “grow-up by evolving” from being you, to being I, to being us, and finally to being all us.

In other words:

• All us “grow-up by evolving” from dependency, to independence, to interdependence, and finally to transcendence.

• All Us “grow-up by evolving” from showing our power and what we possess, to explaining our knowledge and what we do, to transmitting our inspiration and who we feel, and finally to demonstrating our wisdom and who we are.

This evolution is as subtle as subtle is the difference between showing, explaining, transmitting and demonstrating that all us “do” simultaneously but at different dimensions.

If we are not, loved and happy dependants, while fetuses, babies, and toddlers, or later while at play school, kindergarten and primary school, we might never recover from the experience, and never be prepared to take our next step and become independent.

This way, while at high-school, and also during the rest of our lives, we will be and behave as dependents from others, instead of being for others as we need to be, and thus, we will never go beyond showing our power and what we possess.

This of course until we discover love and experience us, that as you know, can happen at any magic and right time....

Regarding Adams quote that “we cannot alter the nature of man”, I am more optimistic that our famous economist, not about his statement that I fully agree with, but with his negative perception of our nature.

I believe that the nature of human beings is that of an individual married to a person for life, and:

• Our individual is driven by many desires and projects, while our person is driven by one yearning and vocation.

• When our individual subordinates to our person we eventually become an altruistic person.

• When our individual insubordinates from our person we eventually become a selfish individual.

The fact that Malraux, or others like him, have not been not able to find a grown-up person, in this individualistic world of ours, is thus easy to understand: they are hard to find and they do not show-off.

relmuche dijo...



Para mí evolucionamos desde:

• La fatalidad del niño que no entiende su tradición que llama se “tu”. (Infancia)
• La imaginación de adolescente anhela una utopía que llama ser “todo nosotros” como manera de contrarrestar esta tradición que no quiere ni entiende. (Adolescencia y Rebeldía).
• La desilusión y sentido practico de adulto, lo hace configurar una realidad acotada que llama ser “yo”. Lo sitúa entre este pasado que todavía no entiende y este futuro que ya no anhela.
• La situación acotada lo vuelve a su escala acotada que llama ser “nosotros”, aquí comprende el sentido afectivo de la tradición y lo real.

De la dependencia fatal a un sentido ilusorio de trascendencia, para configurar una autonomía cíclica de inter-independencia que ira moldeando y evocando finalmente la “intra” dependencia.

Poseídos de la una tradición como incomprensible espectáculo, arrancamos con la sabiduría ingenua que desesperadamente sentimos la necesidad de demostrar porta una verdad, con el tiempo asentamos en egoísmos independientes de conocimiento, para finalmente curtir y moldear el afecto real que sentimos transmitir con otros.

Ese afecto real que sentimos transmitir con otros se reconcilia con la tradición, ya que ahora con la experiencia, podemos evocar su sustrato de amor mas allá de las formas en las cuales se encuentra atrapada toda tradición. Se valora la humanidad y fragilidad en la amenaza del “tu”, que tal vez nunca fue dirigido a ti, pero constituye una carga de dolor (pena, culpa, karma) que inevitablemente todos portan.

La imaginación adolescente es un acto desesperado de rompimiento, que cree encontrar en el “todos nosotros” esa respuesta trascendente que libere de la tradición, algunos insisten en este camino, otros se construyen desde una realidad independiente entre la tradición y esta utopía, para finalmente desde lo acotado ir nutriendo su tradición y reconciliando con ese pasado que ve de otra forma.

El problema es que la utopía y el conocimiento desvían de esta vuelta “afectiva” a la tradición. La sofisticación, espiritualidad, tecnología e información, por decir algunos, son cosas que no aportan a la experiencia de la vida, si no a terceros a usar otras vidas para su beneficio, sea económico o mesiánico.

relmuche dijo...

Given that:

whatever you say is right for you...
whatever I say is right for me....
whatever Berman says is right for him....
¿what is right for us and all us?

that is the question we have to ask and answer....


La diestra dice tener la razón o decir “what is right” y dicta un mandato eterno de sí a todos, porque teme a la siniestra, que hace de la pregunta colectiva una eterna transformación al borde del orden precario. De ambas “what is right”… what ever, as I see I didn’t make my point.

relmuche dijo...

I did not see your point of view because I was looking from mine....
You did not see my point of view either because you were looking from your own....

May be is a matter of perspectives?

May be is damned writing?

Who knows?

Keep on trying, however with less and less writen words and less and less references to other writen words.

May be some day, our hearts will teach our voices a new language that will help us perceive, understand, contemplate and admire eachother....


As a friend said
one can admire another
but that doesn't mean he believes him

less words don't make them more powerfull, unless your looking for a "punchy-idea" to sell something.

when I use references it's not to say "I read other's, oh how intelectual I am, I have solid references ", but to go beyond the fact that pure cristalized self-sentered ideas can be quite boring, don't you think?

And finally, and this is the best part, although you don't realize, I understand your point of view, much more than you do mine, but that is not the reason why I like to be and share with you.

I don't need my heart to enter higher levels to find conections, one thing is to understand "ideas" and create mental problems, and the other and most important is to realize they won't ever solve existential affection, which has always been right here and now.

Template Designed by Douglas Bowman - Updated to Beta by: Blogger Team
Modified for 3-Column Layout by Hoctro