liebevoll=fin
, ne znam, mislim da ovo nikoga ne interesuje, i sam to kaže. tip je malo seljački, tipičan nijemac, treba čovjeku kajš, stalno mu hlaće spadaju, jes' vidio? ali mi je to bilo baš nekako simpatično, ne znam, interesantan tip, sam svoj. No, što primječujem je da su ti 'prosvjetljeni' 'duhovni' tipovi sve više ko žene, ofirno sentimentalni. ne sviđa mi se kad glume dobrotu, ali ono što je interesantno, što vidiš u drugom djelu, je to što je našao da različiti ljudi iz različitih oblasti dolaze do istih zaključaka ne znajući jedan za drugog, u ovom slučaju, više drugih potvrđuju reich-a.
Ima i taj drugi primjer gdje su fizičar van neumann i filozof korzibsky skoro istovremeno izdali svoje knjige u kojima pobijaju aristotelovu logiku, objektivizam, itd., aristotelovu logiku je prije njih već pobijao islamski učenjak ibn tejmijje u 13.st., no kroz svoje naočale monoteizma, nažalost, zatim isto je newton zeznuo stvar svojim krišćanskim naočalama,i decarte svojim prokletim dualizmom, valjda zbog straha od crkve. No, mislim to je interesantno kada pogledaš djelo biologa sheldrake i njegovu teoriju o morfogenetičnom polju, to je kao neka psihološka evolucija, ili bolje reći 'dehipnotizacija' od religija i drugih dogmi i ideologija.-
'Dictatorial power and truth do not go together. They are mutually exclusive.'-Reich(Mass Psychology of Fascism)
danas sam našao jednog tipa, doktora medicine, isto spaja razna polja, fiziku i biologiju, bruce lipton. isto kao sheldrake zastupa teoriju evolucije ali u lamarckovom smislu ili bolje reći 'izgubljenoj teoriji darwin-a'.
http://www.deepleafproductions.com/utop ... arwin.html
objašnjava da nas geni(dnk) ne kontrolišu, da nije toliko važno kakve gene čovjek ima, u njima je određeni potencijal, ali ono što nas čini onim što jesmo su naša 'vjerovanja', kaže tijelo se adaptira tvom vjerovanju, pobija laži moderne medicine i opisuje je kao dogmatičnu, i o raznim zabludama funkcionisanja tijela i evolucije, itd... interesantne stvari.
od liptona link
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=m ... itesearch=, potraži isto sheldrake, i interview sa carl jungom 'face to face'.
Ako ti nije jasno što se ovo slabo spominje u 'main-streamu' pročitaj od robert anton wilson 'die neue inquisition' imaš skinuti na scribd.com. i od john gatto 'UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF American Education' ili od paul godman 'Growing up absurd'
možda još da spomenem, ako hoćeš bolje da shvatiš što čovjek po svojoj prirodnoj prirodi nije 'samodestruktivan', kao što je spomenuo tu folušku freud-a, koristeći demeova otkrića, nađi knjigu od erich fromm 'anatomija ljudske destruktivnosti'. Taj erich je u svojim počecima bio sljedbenik freuda da bi se kao mnogi drugi kasnije suprotstavio u mnogome što je freud izjavio, evo nešto interesantno o edipovom kompleksu,u eseju 'Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Ursprünge der Neurose'
'Freud behauptet, der Ödipuskomplex werde mit Recht als der Kern jeder
Neurose angesehen. Ich glaube, diese Behauptung ist die wesentlichste, die
man über den Ursprung der Neurose machen kann, doch bedarf sie meiner Meinung
nach einer Qualifizierung und Neuinterpretation innerhalb eines Bezugsrahmens,
der von dem, den Freud im Sinn hatte, verschieden ist. Freud wollte mit
seiner Behauptung aussagen: Weil der kleine Junge – sagen wir – seine Mutter
sexuell begehrt, wird er zum Rivalen des Vaters. Die neurotische Entwicklung
besteht nun darin, dass er mit der Angst, die in dieser Rivalität wurzelt, nicht in
zufriedenstellender Weise zurechtkommt. Meines Erachtens hat Freud dadurch,
dass er auf den Konflikt zwischen dem Kind und der elterlichen Autorität und auf
das Versagen des Kindes, diesen Konflikt zufrieden stellend zu lösen, verwiesen
hat, den entscheidenden Punkt für eine neurotische Entwicklung berührt.
Allerdings
glaube ich nicht, dass es zu diesem Konflikt wegen der sexuellen Rivalität
kommt, sondern dass er sich aus der Reaktion des Kindes auf den Druck der elterlichen
Autorität, der Angst des Kindes vor dieser Autorität und schließlich der
Unterwerfung unter sie ergibt.... Das Kind kommt anfangs nicht direkt, sondern nur durch seine Eltern vermittelt
mit der Gesellschaft in Berührung. Diese repräsentieren mit ihrer Charakterstruktur
und mit ihren Erziehungsmethoden die Gesellschaftsstruktur, sind also
sozusagen die psychologische Agentur der Gesellschaft. Was aber geschieht mit
dem Kind hinsichtlich seiner Elternbeziehung? Das Kind lernt durch sie jene Art
von Autorität kennen, die in der jeweiligen Gesellschaft vorherrscht.
Diese Autorität
aber hat die Tendenz, seinen Willen, seine Spontaneität und seine Unabhängigkeit
zu brechen. Doch der Mensch ist nicht dazu geboren, gebrochen zu werden.
Deshalb kämpft das Kind gegen die durch die Eltern verkörperte Autorität.
Es kämpft um seine Freiheit nicht nur, um von einem Druck befreit zu werden,
sondern um frei zu sein, es selbst zu sein – ein vollkommen flügge gewordenes
menschliches Wesen und eben kein Automat.'
Ovo mislim opisuje stanje jednog američkog maturanta,koji prije svog samoubistva napisao pjesmu 'He was square inside and brown'
He drew... the things inside that needed saying.
Beautiful pictures he kept under his pillow.
When he started school he brought them...
To have along like a friend.
It was funny about school, he sat at a square brown desk
Like all the other square brown desks... and his room
Was a square brown room like all the other rooms, tight
And close and stiff.
He hated to hold the pencil and chalk, his arms stiff
His feet flat on the floor, stiff, the teacher watching
And watching. She told him to wear a tie like
All the other boys, he said he didn’t like them.
She said it didn’t matter what he liked.
After that the class drew. He drew all yellow.
It was the way he felt about Morning.
The Teacher came and smiled, "What’s this?
Why don’t you draw something like Ken’s drawing?"
After that his mother bought him a tie, and he always
Drew airplanes and rocketships like everyone else.
He was square inside and brown and his hands were stiff.
The things inside that needed saying didn’t need it
Anymore, they had stopped pushing... crushed, stiff
Like everything else.
iz godmanove knjige u uvodu:
In our society, bright lively children, with the potentiality for knowledge, noble ideals, honest effort, and some kind of worth-while achievement, are transformed into useless and cynical bipeds, or decent young men trapped or early resigned, whether in or out of the organized system. My purpose is a simple one:
to show how it is desperately hard these days for an average child to grow up to be a man, for our present organized system of society does not want men. They are not safe. They do not suit.
Ali ono što reicha odvaja od tih ostalih za svoje vrijeme je da je on prvi(i jedan od rijetkih) koji uzrok psihičke bolesti nije jedino tražio u 'psihi',nego je uključio i tijelo pacijenta u terapiju.
uvezi tog propusta piše aldous huxley u eseju 'the oddest science':
'Let us begin with what is, I suppose, the most serious, as it is certainly the most
conspicuous, shortcoming of them all -- the absence from all these theories (with the
partial exception of Adler's) of any mention of
the body as a conditioning factor in the
formation of a personality, or as a determinant of thoughts, feelings and behavior. Adler,
it is true, made a number of penetrating remarks on the consequences of a sense of
organic inferiority; but even Adler was very far from giving the body its due as a shaper
of individual character and klix.
Freud, Jung and Rank seem to have imagined that
they could understand human minds without taking into account the bodies with which
those minds are indissolubly associated.'
Ovo su moji utisci, doduše mislim da je ovo previše teksta
mog'o bi malo skratit' ubuduće
pusti se prevođenja, ovdje piše sve i više
Svidja mi se i precicu na drugi dio.
A pokazalo