The phallic position : The core of Masculinity

[Schizophonia]

14 hours ago, AION said:

@Schizophonia how did you field test your stuff?

What do you mean

[AION]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

What do you mean

So you haven't even tested those theories. What am I saying is this. For example: Is the Oedipus complex true for you? Since you are talking about it like it is God's given law.

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, AION said:

So you haven't even tested those theories. What am I saying is this. For example: Is the Oedipus complex true for you? Since you are talking about it like it is God's given law.

 It's unconcious.... you haven't studied Freud at all.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[AION]

51 minutes ago, Elliott said:

 It's unconcious.... you haven't studied Freud at all.

 

You are conscious of it right now. 

[Schizophonia]

51 minutes ago, AION said:

So you haven't even tested those theories. What am I saying is this. For example: Is the Oedipus complex true for you? Since you are talking about it like it is God's given law.

Ah yes of course I use it on myself and others to interpret problems and it works very well.
If tomorrow I find or am interested in a more efficient system, then I'll take it.

 

[Sugarcoat]

On 2025-12-07 at 2:10 PM, Schizophonia said:

It seems to me that Lacan invented the concept of "object a", but I don't really know if it's equivalent to Freud's concept of the phallus.

The Oedipus complex is the childhood scenario that essentially teaches you that you must be the object of someone else's desire in order to have them.

It's called the Oedipus complex because, for the average person who grew up in a nuclear family, the first desire is usually for the mother, and the father tend to be seen as a rival. The same applies to a girl, although apparently the dynamic is more bisexual.

If these theories are legit I wonder why it seems they’re not applied so much in modern psychology/psychiatry. Not saying it’s the golden standard, there is probably major flaws in conventional psychiatry. But I mean it has some scientific basis, so I wonder if certain concepts that sound weird just “make sense” like you create a concept that somehow seems to be able to explain a phenomena, but there’s not much support for it actually being the case

[Schizophonia]

22 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

If these theories are legit I wonder why it seems they’re not applied so much in modern psychology/psychiatry.

It doesn't serve the same purpose.

Psychology/behavioral therapy is a form of hygiene; learning to manage stress, having emotional support, avoiding drugs, changing one's perspective, etc.

It doesn't explain why a person has idiopathic psychological problems; the moment you manipulate the subject's mental structures, their subjectivity, then it becomes psychoanalysis.

 

A psychiatrist is basically a psychologist who is studying medicine and can prescribe drugs.

22 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Not saying it’s the golden standard, there is probably major flaws in conventional psychiatry. But I mean it has some scientific basis, so I wonder if certain concepts that sound weird just “make sense” like you create a concept that somehow seems to be able to explain a phenomena, but there’s not much support for it actually being the case

It is less obvious to talk about psychoanalytic science because it is a young practice and, as I said, it implies a degree of subjectivity.

There are also many people who hate psychoanalysis because some psychoanalysts have suggested that phenomena like homosexuality or autism could be curable; there is an ideological dimension to this rejection.

There is also a Marxist/Structuralist critique that I find interesting even though I have not been interested in it, which does not reject subjectivity unlike some scientistic autists but rather the individualizing character of the episemiology/linguistic elements of psychoanalysis.