>"Intrinsic to Christianity is an unshakable faith in the existence of an Ideal Father and an absolute love for this loving Father, who would be, simply put, the foundation of the speaking subject. In turn, the speaking subject is none other than the subject of amorous discourse. This is the Father of Agape and Amor, but who is not Eros. “I love because I am loved,
therefore I am” could be the syllogism of the believer, which Teresa acts out in her visions and ecstasies. Freud is far from rejecting the existence of this “loving father.” He alludes to him in “The Ego and the Id” when he
discovers the “primary identifi cation” with the “father of individual prehistory” (not to be confused with the father of the collective prehistory of the “primal horde”); he possesses the qualities of “both parents” and identification with him is “direkte und unmittelbare” (direct and immediate). For the psychoanalyst this is but a variant of the “Oedipal father.” On the other hand, in its ignorance of the Oedipus complex, the Christian faith only retains a de-eroticized love of and for the Father, as the foundation for the possibility of speaking, which exists if and only if the words spoken are words of love. We can go back to the “Song of Songs,” as Teresa and other mystics did, to find the source of this copresence of word/love.
>Nevertheless, this extreme idealization is only maintained in its pure state, and with an injunction to repression, by the Church’s exoteric message. On the contrary, in her position of internal exclusion, the mystic constantly resexualizes idealization. Freud sheds light on this logic of alternation in the economy of drives: when the processes and excitation go over certain quantitative limits, they are eroticized or de-eroticized. Mystics, especially Teresa, experience this reversal; some, and our saint more than others, are actually able to name it. From here on the alternation between idealization/desexualization/resexualization and vice-versa transforms love for the Ideal Father into the nonstop frenzy of drives, a passion for the Father, which turns out to be a sadomasochistic father-version, a “père-version.” Drastic fasting, penance, flagellation—often using bouquets of nettle on open wounds, convulsions even to the point of epileptic comas, which take advantage of vulnerable neuronal and hormonal states—these are just a few of the sadomasochistic extravagances that mark these ongoing “exiles of the self” in Him (to borrow one of Teresa’s expressions) or this transference toward the Other (to use my terms).
What do you not like about what she's got to say here? The application of Freudian psychoanalytic categories to the symbols of Catholic mystical experience? What she's saying here isn't even controversial from a traditional theological perspective.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Freud is pseudo-intellectual garbage and using him as a "lens" on anything only creates meaningless drivel by people who need to be subordinated but don't want it.
Also, why are so many Freudians exactly the type of people Freud said were mentally ill?
It's really no wonder most actual psychologists don't take him seriously and treat him as a mystic
1 year ago
Anonymous
I think Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principal is worth reading, at least.
She's just being creative no need to get so consumed by envy, you could try enjoying it
1 year ago
Anonymous
enjoy what? I don't think you can convince Christians to ever enjoy sacrilege
1 year ago
Anonymous
>envy
projecting narcissist like all trannies
1 year ago
Anonymous
keep seething dog I'm a very comfortable masculine Christian man, probably bench twice what you can
enjoy what? I don't think you can convince Christians to ever enjoy sacrilege
Explain what's sacrilegious about it. She's deploying psychoanalytic categories to conduct an analysis of the psychic phenomena at work in the spiritual life of a beloved saint. It's done very earnestly and thoughtfully and isn't belittling or disrespectful or heretical in the slightest, and was published by an extremely well-respected theological institution in a volume edited by well-known and pious leaders in contemporary theology.
Freud is pseudo-intellectual garbage and using him as a "lens" on anything only creates meaningless drivel by people who need to be subordinated but don't want it.
Also, why are so many Freudians exactly the type of people Freud said were mentally ill?
It's really no wonder most actual psychologists don't take him seriously and treat him as a mystic
She's not using Freud as a "lens", she's reinterpreting and deploying categories he initially developed in order to shine a light on underconsidered aspects of a specific mystic experience and its implications. She's identifying potential origins and conditions for the direction of specific drives in St. Teresa's mystic experience. She's explaining how the specific institutional context in which St. Teresa existed and out of which her experience emerged created the parameters for her spiritual innovations. All that Kristeva's doing here is exploring the conditions of mysticism. Idk why the trads are so butthurt. I think they must simply not read.
Also, Kristeva isn't really a Freudian in the sense you seem to be using it. At best maybe you could call her a post-Lacanian or something like that, if trying to place her in allegiance to a specific psychoanalytic school or era. She's evaluating the mystic experience in relation to Freudian psychoanalytic concepts, not making a committed ideological defense to either.
The way you people discuss on here makes you come off as extremely dense.
Every time I see a picture of Dworkin I feel an immediate and visceral sense of pure revulsion. Even her name seems calculated to be as ugly as sonically possible. It's honestly kind of impressive how hideous she is in every way
JK Rowling
Murasaki Shikibu
Why are there women in my board?
I'm not a woman, just israeli
Shalom!
Post Khazar milkers please
Dorothy Dinnerstein, Eve Sedgwick, Adrienne Rich, Nancy Chodorow, Shulamith Firestone, Hortense Spillers, Margaret Mead
Margaret Mead
Valerie Solanis by a mile.
Good author
Julia Kristeva. She's so hot, also read her essay on Teresa of Avila in Carnal Hermeneutics from Fordham University Press.
>"Intrinsic to Christianity is an unshakable faith in the existence of an Ideal Father and an absolute love for this loving Father, who would be, simply put, the foundation of the speaking subject. In turn, the speaking subject is none other than the subject of amorous discourse. This is the Father of Agape and Amor, but who is not Eros. “I love because I am loved,
therefore I am” could be the syllogism of the believer, which Teresa acts out in her visions and ecstasies. Freud is far from rejecting the existence of this “loving father.” He alludes to him in “The Ego and the Id” when he
discovers the “primary identifi cation” with the “father of individual prehistory” (not to be confused with the father of the collective prehistory of the “primal horde”); he possesses the qualities of “both parents” and identification with him is “direkte und unmittelbare” (direct and immediate). For the psychoanalyst this is but a variant of the “Oedipal father.” On the other hand, in its ignorance of the Oedipus complex, the Christian faith only retains a de-eroticized love of and for the Father, as the foundation for the possibility of speaking, which exists if and only if the words spoken are words of love. We can go back to the “Song of Songs,” as Teresa and other mystics did, to find the source of this copresence of word/love.
>Nevertheless, this extreme idealization is only maintained in its pure state, and with an injunction to repression, by the Church’s exoteric message. On the contrary, in her position of internal exclusion, the mystic constantly resexualizes idealization. Freud sheds light on this logic of alternation in the economy of drives: when the processes and excitation go over certain quantitative limits, they are eroticized or de-eroticized. Mystics, especially Teresa, experience this reversal; some, and our saint more than others, are actually able to name it. From here on the alternation between idealization/desexualization/resexualization and vice-versa transforms love for the Ideal Father into the nonstop frenzy of drives, a passion for the Father, which turns out to be a sadomasochistic father-version, a “père-version.” Drastic fasting, penance, flagellation—often using bouquets of nettle on open wounds, convulsions even to the point of epileptic comas, which take advantage of vulnerable neuronal and hormonal states—these are just a few of the sadomasochistic extravagances that mark these ongoing “exiles of the self” in Him (to borrow one of Teresa’s expressions) or this transference toward the Other (to use my terms).
messed up the greentext copypasting but whatever
the absolute state of academia
What do you not like about what she's got to say here? The application of Freudian psychoanalytic categories to the symbols of Catholic mystical experience? What she's saying here isn't even controversial from a traditional theological perspective.
Freud is pseudo-intellectual garbage and using him as a "lens" on anything only creates meaningless drivel by people who need to be subordinated but don't want it.
Also, why are so many Freudians exactly the type of people Freud said were mentally ill?
It's really no wonder most actual psychologists don't take him seriously and treat him as a mystic
I think Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principal is worth reading, at least.
Reads like a shitpost.
She's just being creative no need to get so consumed by envy, you could try enjoying it
enjoy what? I don't think you can convince Christians to ever enjoy sacrilege
>envy
projecting narcissist like all trannies
keep seething dog I'm a very comfortable masculine Christian man, probably bench twice what you can
Explain what's sacrilegious about it. She's deploying psychoanalytic categories to conduct an analysis of the psychic phenomena at work in the spiritual life of a beloved saint. It's done very earnestly and thoughtfully and isn't belittling or disrespectful or heretical in the slightest, and was published by an extremely well-respected theological institution in a volume edited by well-known and pious leaders in contemporary theology.
She's not using Freud as a "lens", she's reinterpreting and deploying categories he initially developed in order to shine a light on underconsidered aspects of a specific mystic experience and its implications. She's identifying potential origins and conditions for the direction of specific drives in St. Teresa's mystic experience. She's explaining how the specific institutional context in which St. Teresa existed and out of which her experience emerged created the parameters for her spiritual innovations. All that Kristeva's doing here is exploring the conditions of mysticism. Idk why the trads are so butthurt. I think they must simply not read.
Also, Kristeva isn't really a Freudian in the sense you seem to be using it. At best maybe you could call her a post-Lacanian or something like that, if trying to place her in allegiance to a specific psychoanalytic school or era. She's evaluating the mystic experience in relation to Freudian psychoanalytic concepts, not making a committed ideological defense to either.
The way you people discuss on here makes you come off as extremely dense.
My girlie, Simone
My mom
Nick land
bell hooks is so good. changed my life.
Is it good?
Sasha Grey
pagilla
Every time I see a picture of Dworkin I feel an immediate and visceral sense of pure revulsion. Even her name seems calculated to be as ugly as sonically possible. It's honestly kind of impressive how hideous she is in every way