> > My question has subtle implications, but as MMB notes, it was an axe-blow.
>
> Now the question was "...wouldn't it be true to say that, by hypothesis,
> Freud observed that *everything human* was eroticized?" I found MMB's
> post interesting as a poetic device but much too metaphorical to be
> cited as support for the assertion "there is something or other axiomatic
> in Freud's work that leads to the conclusion that 'if a thing is human, then
> it is eroticized'."
I don't think he cited it as support in any deeply significant way. So,
to shed some light, I offer the following
Item: Freud's polymorphous perverse infant is (he says) present at (I
want to say *as*, but I'm not positive I'm right...) ...present at the
start of human consciousness. It is a sexual state (according to him);
so QED. It's all sex, all the way down. Even before we know about
Thanatos, according to Freud, we have, we *embody*, Eros. And Id (which,
I am reliably informed, is "Das Es" in the original German, and a more
honest word there, since "Id" has become jargonized in English... "The
It" ~= the animal/meat/preconscious/not-human part of the human). Id
might not be sexual, but since it's not human, it doesn't count.
I thought all this was obvious from pop culture + Psych 101, so I cut to
the chase. I didn't mean to disrespect you as a questioner. Sorry for
the slam-dunk attitude re: Freud, to the extent that I contributed (and
I did).
Respectfully yours,
Michael M. Butler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:58 MDT