Do you know where I can find the Gospel of Thomas, if it is possible? I do not agree with following blindly, and so I disagree with what they did at the church in Nicea or however it is spelled. If I can get a hold of that Gospel, that would be wonderful. I interpret what the bible says as how I feel it should be interpreted, if the church doesn't like, screw them. I do not feel a part of a whole in church, it is more like finding what is in the bible and then interpreting it the way you believe it should be interpreted. Anywho, yes, if I could get a link or a place where it can be found, it would be much appreciated.
You're right, the album draws heavily in some areas on Jungian psychology, i.e. "46 & 2," but I don't think this song is one of them).
i beg to differ,
i believe, personally, the song is about a relationship in which the main character of the song is cheated on, but i believe the "infant" choked before him is a metaphor where the infant is the relationship itself.
As for the Jung allusion,
"what is this but my reflection
who am i to judge or strike you down"
the main character is speaking of his (assuming he is indeed male) anima. For Jung said the anima is the essentally the female consciousness in every male.
Location: somewhere I don't wanna be...otherwise known as Indianapolis
Posts: 713
Bincount™: 5
Re: I hope this doesn't piss Maynard off!
I agree, and I would like to thank JTCrace for his illuminating posts. I definitely think this song has many deep symbolic interpretations and it is not meant to be taken literally (as it sounds like a domestic dispute or something).
On one of the Tool bootlegs that I have, Maynard introduces this song (album version) by saying, "Ever have someone love you so much that they tried to kill you- or perhaps suck you down into a hole? So much so that you had to kill them to get away? [long pause] Me either...
__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
--Saul Bellow
Good insightful post. Fits together if you believe in the Oedipus complex as being 100% true. Unfortunately, most psychologists now a days think it to be crap, and the only reason it's ever mentioned is 1)history 2) nostalgia 3) was very revolutionary at the time. Freud had a LOT of theories, and he was the first one to really go into any type of details about theories of human developement/thinking. Most his stuff is taught as groundwork nowadays, but the vast majority of it has been found to, or is believed to be false - including the Oedipus complex.
Otherwise, great post. If it makes sense for you, more power to ya. Personally, I think its about a relationship (as most all the songs are) he had with a women, but not his mother.
A psychologist is in his essence, a scientist. Therefore he can only postulate theories and support these theories with observable evidence. As far as who's right and who's wrong depends upon the validity of the evidence and whether it proves the hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't "believe" in the Oedipus complex, I "know" that the Oedipus complex exists. Let me explain.
A complex is an observable pattern of behaviour. The Oedipus Complex is a pattern of behaviour produced by interactions with one's personal mother as well as the Mother Archetype. Jung said that in fact, we don't have complexes, but that they have us. This means that a complex is an identity that a male takes on. It is not HIM essentially, but only an identity that he assumes.
Gurdjieff (a spiritual teacher from the early 1900s) said that man's biggest illusion is that he has a permanent ego, or that he has any unity within himself. In actual fact, man in his present state is a huge conglomerations of ego's, each with a specific desire. An identity is a collection of like-minded ego's, or ego's that have similar and-or related desires. for instance, the person you are when you are around your grandmother is certainly not the person you are around your best friend--these are two different identities.
But of course this brings up the question: do I want to be the same person when I am around my grandmother and when I am around my best friend? Well, some of the shit I say to my best friend would give my grandmother a fucking heart attack on the spot. So, no I would like to keep these two identities and keep them separate. However, the important thing is that I RECOGNIZE and CONTROL these identities, and make sure it is not the other way around.
The situation that Maynard is describing in "Pushit" is the typical behaviour one sees when one is observing a male that possesses the Oedipus Complex (or Oedipus Identity if you like). What normally happens with a male who has an unrecognized Oedipus Complex is that when he chooses a mate, it is not "him" doing the choosing. His complex will pick out a female that will allow it (the complex) to be fully expressed. So, even if Maynard is outwardly writing about a girlfriend, inwardly he is still dealing with the complex.
The reason I "know" that the Oedipus Complex exists is because I have observed it--in myself and in many, many other males, old and young. In fact, it is quite the epidemic. And it is absolutely destroying this planet. Here is why: when a male is possessed with the complex, like I said above, this complex represents a collection of "I's" or egos. The problem with this identity is that it is not centered upon the self, it is centered on another. Therefore it prevents a male from developing "I's" that are centered upon himself and consequently he can't "do." And furthermore, it prevents a male from developing any other sort of "I's" that are not centered around union and consummation with the Mother.
And lastly, just because "most psychologists" believe something does not make it true. I'll bet my left testicle that the reason "most psychologists" believe the Oedipus Coplex is "crap" is because they are all possessed themselves. And now their denial, has become your denial.
Why would you post something that you think will piss Maynard off? :-/
__________________ l don't want to be alone again today...
Hold me close and together we'll pray
That this moment never fades away...
Fade away, fade away, like any other day.
BECAUSE JUNG OR FREUD SAID IT, DOES NOT MAKE IT GOSPEL.
Psychologist's are scientists yes, and the vast vast majority of them think the Oedipus complex to be complete and utter crap. Somehow though, I'm sure your personal experiences outweigh all the research/observation done by the thousands of psychologists thruout the world.
Also, the way you're trying to use the oedipus conflict is flawed. Not to mention the fact that 1) you explained it wrong 2) are infering what you think it to mean 3) are using those inferences as fact. You're mixing up 3 or 4 theories all together, most of which are incorrect in the way you're using em (esp oedipus).
BECAUSE JUNG OR FREUD SAID IT, DOES NOT MAKE IT GOSPEL.
Psychologist's are scientists yes, and the vast vast majority of them think the Oedipus complex to be complete and utter crap. Somehow though, I'm sure your personal experiences outweigh all the research/observation done by the thousands of psychologists thruout the world.
Also, the way you're trying to use the oedipus conflict is flawed. Not to mention the fact that 1) you explained it wrong 2) are infering what you think it to mean 3) are using those inferences as fact. You're mixing up 3 or 4 theories all together, most of which are incorrect in the way you're using em (esp oedipus).
I can understand that you might be mad that JT says that Freud and Jung are more correct than all of the observations made by thousands of phsycologists, but you say that the way he tries to use the oedipus conflict is flawed. It would be nice if YOU explained why the fuck you think he is wrong. Your telling without explaining is more aggrivating than someone revealing themselves through something (even if they're wrong). At least JT uses facts that he has seen to back up what he says. You just seem pissed. I'm guessing that the Oedipus complex has you.
-Oedipus conflict - the boy begins to have sexual desires for his mother, and sees his father as a rival for her affections. The boy begins to fear that his father is suspicious of his longing for his mother, and that the father will punish him for his desires. That punishment, the boy fears, will be castratation, which brings us to the second critical episode for this stage.
-Castration anxiety- The fear of castration make the boy anxious. This anxiety begun with the fear of punishment from the father leads to the boy thinking that the father hates him eventually becomes unbearable and the boy renounces his sexual feelings for his mother and chooses instead to identify with his father, and hopes to someday have a relationship with a woman (though not his mother) just like dear old dad has with his mother.
Thats the oedipus conflict. A child want's to be close to the parent of the opposite sex, but they're currently (obviously) involved with the other parent. Therefore, a child must eliminate the same-sex parent to have have any shot (although we know this would never work anyway).
Psychologists have discovered that children don't really go thru this type of a stage, and time spent with whichever parent is generally dictated by whichever parent is able to give more attention at the time (as children love attention).
All the different things he's infered from the conflict don't work out. The mother wanting to be with him? laff. The boy wanting to jump back into the womb? zz. The boy in an oedipus complex wants to bang his moms, or be 'sexual', not go back into the womb. Half his explanation revolves around the mother wanting him to stay or be with her, seducing him purposefully. This is not the oedipus complex, the conflict is entirely 100% between the boy and the father.
furthermore, I'm not saying HE can't believe that the song is about the oedipus conflict, he can believe whatever he wants. I'm just shedding some light on why I don't believe it to be so.
Good points, definitely worth hearing. By the way, I wasn't serious at the end of my last post, it is just from Hooker With A Penis. I noticed that my post made it seem like I was angry, I wasn't, so I just thought I'd throw that in at the end. Sorry to have upset you, I suppose I was blind to the way you would feel about it. However, I do have a question. You wouldn't happen to have got your User Name from Marilyn Manson would you have. The Irresponsible Hate Anthem in fact. In it he says "I am the ism, my hate's a prism" Anyways, maybe you did maybe you didn't. Either way, sorry for not being User Friendly.
ha, guess i need to turn my sarcasm detectors up :o
The name was originally from manson yes, but i'll give ya an explaination of why I chose it for my online alias.
I started listening to manson at a time when I was still developing my personal philosophy about my own spirituality / religious beliefs (like a lot of people). Obviously he influences people in different ways. Listening to some of his lyrics, there was some words i didn't know. Ism (IRH) and erstaz (rock is dead), come to mind off the top of the head.
ism:
\Ism\, n. A doctrine or theory; especially, a wild or visionary theory
At this time i was reading into satanism, where you are more or less your own god. Find your own truths in thinngs, etc. "i'm the ism", in terms of his lyrics, it would mean him to be the one god, the way to follow, etc. When I thought about it and reflected on it, "i'm the ism" could also mean (in talking about myself) I personally am my own god. I answer to myself, and I live my life in such a way that best suits my personal beliefs that i have formed for myself. Although i dont proclaim to be anything but agnostic, my beliefs draw from different areas, and one i still believe in is some of the stuff i just mentioned about satanism.
"i'm the ism" - I am my own doctrine, way of life, god, etc.
-Oedipus conflict - the boy begins to have sexual desires for his mother, and sees his father as a rival for her affections. The boy begins to fear that his father is suspicious of his longing for his mother, and that the father will punish him for his desires. That punishment, the boy fears, will be castratation, which brings us to the second critical episode for this stage.
-Castration anxiety- The fear of castration make the boy anxious. This anxiety begun with the fear of punishment from the father leads to the boy thinking that the father hates him eventually becomes unbearable and the boy renounces his sexual feelings for his mother and chooses instead to identify with his father, and hopes to someday have a relationship with a woman (though not his mother) just like dear old dad has with his mother.
Thats the oedipus conflict. A child want's to be close to the parent of the opposite sex, but they're currently (obviously) involved with the other parent. Therefore, a child must eliminate the same-sex parent to have have any shot (although we know this would never work anyway).
Psychologists have discovered that children don't really go thru this type of a stage, and time spent with whichever parent is generally dictated by whichever parent is able to give more attention at the time (as children love attention).
Just a side note, do you know why Jung split away from Freud and his theories?
Regards,
Andy
__________________ Chasing the Trail of smoke and reason
Here's is why Jung broke from Freud (it's in his autobiography): Jung published a paper in which he hypothesized a different source for the Oedipus complex. Freud claimed that a boy's sexual attraction to his mother was intinctive, biological, and purely sexual. Jung on the other hand claimed that a boy's attraction for his mother was purely spiritual, or archetypal. This means that personal mothers are merely reflections of the Mother archetype.
The word archetype means "first imprint." Archetypes are universal, meaning that every one relates to the "Mother" somehow. The is only one problem with archetypes: they cannot be experienced directly, only indirectly by means of a complex. Jung said that archetypes exactly corresponded to what primitive people would have referred to as gods and goddesses.
And that is how primitive people would have solved the Oedipus Complex. For instance, in the village is a shrine to the Great Mother. Every other day a man is expected to go to the shrine. While there, he fully expresses his Oedipus Complex. He seeks nothing but divine consummation with the Mother goddess. He then leaves the shrine, his complex is satiatied and the complex waits patiently until the next time it can become activated.
Sadly though, because of advanced western thinking, we have no such rituals anymore. So the complex (that every male has) becomes covert and operates in an unconscious manner.
Sidenote: I personally do not think that Jung went far enough with his psychology. He claimed that archetypes had to remain unknown. I disagree. All one would really have to do is complete some past life recall and find out when the archetype (first-imprint) was first imprinted into one's mind. But until that point one should learn how to safely deal with the imprint.
Also, it seems maybe Jung denied Freud's theories because he never wanted to acknowledge that his desire for his mother really was a desire for his persoanl mother, not only the archetype.
And here is the ultimate understanding of Jung and Freud: Jung spoke in generalities and Freud spoke in specifics. And I guess you could say they are both right and both wrong.
This concept naturally brings up some questions: if the word archetype means "first imprint", then who is the imprinter? And why did it-he-she do this? In Jung's introduction to "The Psychology of Alchemy" he says that psychology can only concern itself with the imprint, not the imprinter, that is a theologian's job.
I have said this before, maybe in this thread but definitely in others, reality is created by agreement. More broadly, a being's existence here in this universe is the result of agreements. And this is where we can see the real message of Siddhartha Gotama's no-self doctrine (the anatta doctrine). He claimed that by realizing that EVERY-THING in this universe is NOT YOU, one could escape. But how can one go about realizing such a thing? By resolving agreements that have been made, in this life and previous ones. And resolving agreements isn't just agreeing to disagree. One resolves agreements by duplicating them in time, space, form and event, in other words remembering them in the purest sense. Because by its very nature two things cannot exist in the same place in this universe. And when one duplicates an agreement, two things are existing in the same place and that is when you achieve erasure.
Now psychologists assume that we can do nothing about archetypes, that they are HERE to say. OK, but what if I wasn't HERE in this universe? Well, then archetypes wouldn't really
affect me. It would be like if a tear gas bomb went off in a house. The gas will only affect me as long as I am in the house. It will no longer affect me if I walk outside.
You said that "we can never control the sun personally no matter how hard we try." That is half-right. I cannot control how the sun affects you or any other being for that matter. However, I can control how it affects me.
Back to the imprinter. A being essentially has free will, or absolute freedom. If that is true, then one would have to agree to be imprinted. And to erase the sun's affect on me I would simply have to cognize that the sun is "not-I." And I could only truly cognize such a thing by recalling the point at which I decided it would be a part of me.
Another sidenote: Believe me, I know this post may sound a bit strange. But there is so much I had leave out for brevity's sake.
My roommate/girlfriend amy and I just broke up and I kicked her out.... we only dated for a week... last weekend, I heard that she was dating some black male stripper for a hip hop radio station.. she was at his house.. in his bedroom.. viritually alone as her girlfriend betty was passed out. This guy lives 10 minutes from My apartment. amy is bisexual and was a stripper. amy and betty broke up because they claimed the other was stealing money and clothing. so betty came over last weekend, took her supposedly clothes, and told me this story.. I almost threw her out but I talked to her... after that, I realized she wanted to date Me so we officially started dating... then thursday, she said she wanted to take "street dance lessons" and her class was from 9:30pm - 3am....she came back and said there was a guy committing suidice and the cops wouldn't let her leave.. then she said her truck woudn't start.. so I went down to start it.. got it on the 1st try... I told her to call her instructor.. his number was already programmed into her cell phone...
basically, after I kicked her out, she kept saying how much she loves Me.. she still loves Me...but I felt how she cheated on Me... after that, I found out she did more stuff..(when we were not dating but had a honest truthful open relationship) and never told Me... I think she did the stuff she did out of fear and revenge for the little things I did or didn't do. As of now, I am not sure what to do.. the best thing I can think of is by living separately.. pushing her away from Me... only to be left alone with these thoughts of what she did.. what I did.. all she wants to do is talk about it face to face.. in hopes she will cry and appear to My good side to take her back but all I want is silence.. to let go.. and move on.. just uncertain what I should do... rebuild the pieces or let them go... can I ever trust her again? do I want to? do I want to get revenge on her? do I want to be compassionate, forgive, and move on?
Dude i have resort to quoting an ignorant ass person, snoop dogg said it best, "bitches arn't shit but hoes and tricks" i just had a tricky bitch break up with me a week ago, but you live and you learn.
__________________ l don't want to be alone again today...
Hold me close and together we'll pray
That this moment never fades away...
Fade away, fade away, like any other day.
As far as desires, she helped me in a specific way. I think that there is someone for everyone. The person that makes you gaga for no reason, just makes you stupid almost. It is love I believe. That is what happened. By meeting her and then falling in love with her, it broke my bonds. By accepting my love, no matter how stupid I probably acted let me focus my love and desires toward her. She set me free.
As far as God goes, I don't know how he got there, always was there according to the Bible. And as far as the Bible's legitamacy goes, the proveable things in it have been proven to be true. Some things just need faith to be believed.
Now, I don't think that he is a fucked up asshole. He created us perfect, and then he gave us choice. We ate of the fruit. We screwed ourselves over. But that was the only way for us to love him. If he didn't give us choice and allow us to know the difference of good and evil, then we would be forced to love him. That is not love. Anyway, then there was the crucifiction, which allows us to be forgiven of our sins if we ask. Of course he doesn't want you to be lukewarm. Either hate him or love him. You choose.
Anyway, feel free to make any comments, that goes for anyone.
Let me just say though, I can attest to JTCrace's statements in the first two postings. My mom feels that our family is falling apart due to the fact that everyone of the kids has left home pretty much. I guess that I ripped her fucking throat away. But my desires would have intensified I'm sure if it didn't end. It could have ended no other way.
Thank You!
I have had many problems figuring out y i am a christian and y to believe in Jesus Christ. What u just said in that last post kinda cleared up alot of things i have been thinking about. I always believed their was a god but was'nt sure y i believed or if i did because tahts how ive been raised. What you said tho kind of filled the empty gaps i had in my religious beliefs.
thanx
?............?
I will choke until I swallow...
Choke this infant here before me.
What is this but my reflection?
Who am I to judge and strike you down?
Perhaps he is talking about faith (especially most christian familys) where parents force christianity down their child's throat, forcing them to swallow/this could also be a reference to christians that try to take away peoples choice and make them believe that christianity is the only choice that they are allowed to make
But you're
Pushing and shoving me.
You still love me and you pushit on me.
I was trying not to swallow, I wanted my own opinion, but you pushed it on me, there was nothing I could do but swallow the pill you've been trying to feed me, you still love me because I swallow your choices
Rest your trigger on my finger,
bang my head upon the fault line.
Take care not to make me enter.
'cause if I do we both may disappear.
You're driving me insane with your control, I'm on the fault line, which way should I choose, do I have a choice, don't choose for me-then we wouldn't have made any progress and the fault line would have opened
But you're pushing me,
Shoving me. Pushit on me.
But since your pushing it on me, should I care that I don't have a choice, should I just give in to the shit that you push on me? (whether it is truly shit or not doesn't matter, it is shit if you didn't choose it for yourself)
Slipping back into the gap again.
I'm alive when you're touching me,
Alive when you're shoving me down.
I'm falling back into place, like when I was a child, I felt that I can only be alive believing your every word even if your words aren't the ones that I would choose to believe
But i'd trade it all
For just a little bit of
Piece of mind.
I want to interpret faith for myself, take the words and learn from them from my own experiences, from my thoughts, this would give me piece of mind, I don't care if my choices kill me and yours keep me alive, I just want piece of mind-just a little
Put me somewhere I don't wanna be.
Seeing someplace I don't wanna see.
Never wanna see that place again.
Your still trying to make up my mind, make my choices for me, trying to steal my piece of mind, but I don't want that, I never want to follow blindly again, I have my own mind to decide what I want, I see the light for myself, I don't want to see the darkness of not being able to choose
Saw that gap again today
As you were begging me to stay.
Managed to push myself away,
And you, as well.
I have finally made a stand for the things I believe (perhaps late teens or so-in some cases 30s or whatever) I pushed myself away from the faultline which in turn pushed the parent(s) away as well
If, when I say I may fade like a sigh if I stay,
You minimize my movement anyway,
I must persuade you another way.
I made a stand, but that was not enough, I tried to convince you that I would fade away if I staid on the faultline, but you don't want to let me go, I must persuade you another way
There's no love in fear.
You can't have a true relationship with Jesus if you are in fear of your parents, you must come to your own opinions and beliefs based on research of the Bible and reference books and so on
Staring down the hole again.
Hands upon my back again.
Survival is my only friend.
Terrified of what may come.
This whole time you have been terrified that your mom might be right, you're scared that hell is on its way for you, but piece of mind is waiting so I must survive, I will not slip into that hole, I don't care if I'm wrong, I will come to God on the terms that I believe he set forth, I believe these terms because that is the way I interpreted them from his word, and he will accept me because I had faith and a relationship/ even if I have doubt that I'm wrong because my thoughts disagree with what I have always been taught
Just remember I will always love you,
Even as I tear your fucking throat away.
But it will end no other way
I love you, I know that you meant well, but I have to rip your fucking throat away or you will keep on telling me what to believe, it will end no other way than to disregard what the parent has always told you and then have the child decide what they want to believe (a lot of times a lot of the beliefs base themselves on the things that the parent(s) believed)
This is an interpretation, possibly what TOOL was thinking, possibly not. It is apparent that they have many songs with religious underpinnings, so it would not be surprising if this had something to do with their thoughts.
P.S. not all christians are the way I described them above. I am a christian and I believe in choice, I will tell you what I believe, but I will not tell you to believe what I believe, unless you think that it is the choice that you want to make
Last edited by Luna Galapogos; 11-09-2003 at 04:03 PM..
A unique, interesting, creative post. See what you think of this:
You mentioned the word belief about 15 or 16 times in your post. What is a belief? And why did the liner notes to Aenima say something to the effect that "beliefs are dangerous, they prevent a mind from functioning, a non-functioning mind is clinically dead?"
A belief is in its essence is a "not-know." For instance, I could say, "I believe your name is Jason." But then I may actually communicate with you, and you may say, "Hi, my name is Jason." Then you have truthfully confirmed my belief. Now I KNOW that your name is Jason. Or you could say, "Hi, my name is Bob." Now my treasured belief has been destroyed.
I believe that beliefs are unavoidable. They may even be necessary to a certain extent. However, I must be prepared at any moment in time to replace my beliefs with knowledge. The liner notes didn't say, "Reject beliefs." They merely said, "Beliefs are dangerous." Meaning that one must be very, very careful with one's "not-know"s.
Beliefs and knowledge are two completely separate things. Knowledge implies observation, experience, confirmation, confidence, consistency, and power. Beliefs imply uncertainty.
I know that people "believe" things because they cannot confront truth. They cannot, for whatever reason, have knowledge. Which brings up another topic: hope.
Hope is a "can't have." For instance I could say, "I hope I can become a professional musician." As long as I am hoping, it will never happen. If I really wanted become a professional musician, I should: 1.) Be a professional musician, which means 2.) Doing what a professional musician does, and then I can 3.) Have what a professional musician has.
Well, belief is unavoidable. People choose to believe because they have a need to have something to take the weight off of their shoulders. I probably should've used a different word instead of belief, a word that would have better fit, I just didn't think about it objectively when I wrote the post.
You can't believe in nothing however, you must believe that you shouldn't believe in nothing, thus you are believing. There is no escaping it. Belief permeates our existence. That is why you must be able to choose what to believe and how far to push that belief.
Religous fanatics, or any other fanatic for that matter, perhaps sports. They push it too far. A sport team loses and their fans start committing suicide. You don't believe my religion is right, I'll shoot you in your head and laugh about it.
I suppose that the word has just been pounded into my head so much it just came out. A problem that needs to be rectified. Unfortunately I am a creature of habbit and thus, I will fall prey to such inconviencies. Oh well. Thanks for insight. Do you think that this interpretation has any bearing?
P.S. just as a sidenote- Christianity is a really a system of belief and faith. It is to my understanding that everyone chooses to either believe it something else or no religion at all. The point is that when you have chosen to believe something that you research it and interpret it for what you think it means, not some pastor somewhere, not your parents. They might help you, but you must choose to have your own thoughts or choose to be a sheep.
~Is this a prelude to an unforged thought?~
Last edited by Luna Galapogos; 11-10-2003 at 02:45 PM..
I am not offering my opinion on the origional post, but I am going to say that it was very insensative and ill timed considering Maynards mother recently passed away.
I really liked your initial interpretation, and it has inspired me to learn more of Jungian theories. Something I had already wanted to do, but which I now know I must do.
I, like most others, thought/think pushit is about relationships. I think in all relationships, each person must give a piece of themselves, and there is always fear in this. What will the recipient do with this piece? If they leave, what will become of this piece?
I have yet to reach complete faith in a relationship, so maybe I just don't understand what it is like to be completely in love. I am thinking of, one and one are one.
Pushit can very easily be applied to relationships, because at many times we all feel trapped. We are not free to do as we please if we share a link with another person. Sure it may feel great, but there is usually a nag somewhere along the line.
Just a quick note: I never actually read the lyrics for pushit, but I always thought the words were "Peace of mind", rather than "Piece of mind". I think the implications of this are pretty clear considering what I've previously written. "But I'd trade it all for just a little peace of mind". I'm not saying I'm right about this, it's just what I had always previously assumed.
Anyway, I really loved your interpretation because for me, it applies greatly. I find myself struggling against the umbilical residue of my mother's grasp. Daily I fight to maintain independance from her love. I relate very closely to your post, and you have in turn inspired me, so thankyou.
Frightening how you nailed me with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTCrace
Because I generally know what type of crowd listens to TOOL (or at last the portion of the crowd that posts on a TOOL-oriented forum): feminine, intellectual males. Males who imagine themselves as some groundbreaking thinkers who are pushing the envelope at every turn. When in all reality, they are pussies who use their intellectuality as a substitute for life and progress and power.
Scary, but true. I'm afraid to admit it, but I think it is.
What now I wonder...
Elgyn, your post makes me very happy. Not because you agreed with me (however my ego did enjoy that) but because of your honesty. I know that a person cannot have real communication with another without understanding. All of these things that I have written about come from first-hand experience. I understand them. I wrote them as a confessional of sorts but also to possibly help other individuals confront their demons (and angels as well for that matter).
I have had some past life recall and I know that I have been around for quite a few lifetimes, aeons maybe. This is important for me because I realize that when I am dealing with my personal mother of this lifetime, that interaction is keying-in many, many other images from past lives. I think that is why it can seem so difficult for a male to establish himself and develop a healthy functioning ego.
If one studies enough spiritual, religious, occultish, etc. ideas one is bound to encounter the idea of "letting go of one's ego." Or, in Maynard's words: "Crucify the ego." What I think many young males do is they take such information and use it to reinforce their insanity. Since they don't really have an "I" of their own, they take this information and make it so that they never will. But one fact remains: one cannot crucify one's ego if one never has an ego in the first place.
Lastly, I like being a feminine intellectual. I much prefer to operate from my feminine soul than from my masculine ego (anyways, my masculine ego is fairly weak, probably always will be). Feminine energy oscillates at a higher frequency, and I like high frequencies. However, I know now that I can be a happier feminine guy when I can balance it out with some masculinity. But, what happens when a person is psychosexually unbalanced leads us into the general nature of the universe.
From an abstract unity, the universe unfolds into a mirrored duality. Hence we see the yin-yang which has four parts (a duality that is mirrored). So if we take any set of opposites, like masculinity and feminity, there is really a mirrored duality there. If one looks, one might see that he or she is: 1.) 25% feminine, 2.) 25% masculine, 3.) 25% both and 4.) 25% neither. The same goes with sexual orientation: 25% homosexual, 25% heterosexual, 25% both, and 25% neither.
However, all sorts of crazy shit happens when all four parts aren't acknowledged. When a person tries to repress (that means saying something isn't there when it really is) any one of the four parts, those repressed parts will find expression in unconscious ways, out of one's awareness. That is why you see forty year old men who decide they want to get a sex change and be a women. Or a woman who decides after 20 years of marriage she is really a lesbian. Or a married couple who after fifteen years of marraige, pretty much become asexual beings. Or look at "best friends," and you'll see some of the most intense love ever. It is essentially undeclared, unconfronted homosexuality. Watch "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and one will know what I am talking about.
So does this mean I should spend a fourth of my day being heterosexual, a fourth of my day being homosexual, a fourth of by day being both, and a fourth of my day being neither? Well, that depends and also brings up the idea of quantity. As far as quantity is concerned, the above 25% formula is true. However, there is the issue of quality. For instance I may find that my "neither" category is of a much higher quality than any of the others. Therefore I will express it more. Or I may find that my heterosexuality is of a much higher quality than all the others, then I will express that more. It is a matter of taste and satisfaction. Unfortunately because of social constructs, it becomes difficult for a person to explore their homosexuality, or even acknowledge that it exists. Consequently, we have far too many repressed homosexuals walking around than we really should.
hmm... i i have a feeling that these songs are looked into too deeply and they probably mean something a lot less.... deep? sometimes i think Maynard makes things so obvious that theyre hard to find... if that makes sense. but dont get me wrong, i think the music and the lyrics are brilliant!
I think I understand the Oedipal complex. It is born from our innate desire to access God, which for me is the transcendental mindstate, where we are in a state of just 'be-ing' as you say. for we all access the Perfect Form of the human being, God, at this mind state. More on 'be-ing' later. Anyway, the Oedipal complex is when do not consciously seek and fulfil the mindstate, but allow ourselves to live it through others, and through the unconscious. We do not connect with oneness as an individual. I was trying to anwer the question of why people love hollywood films so much and watching television yet cannot read and cannot properly understand music? Because these things require the imagination, the individual connecting with oneness and accessing these transcendental states (which as I said before, are within all of us) However hollywood films are almost always based on the hero's journey, which is basically an embodiment of the overcoming of personal demons, internal and external which obstruct us from accessing the state of 'individuation' where we are able to control ourselves and access our psychic potential - therefore we stop idealising and start making reality. As you say, the myth is a way of fulfiling or perhaps satisfying the demands of the Oedipal Complex; i.e. living the journey which we should all be living through somebody else.
As you are wise, I shall ask you for advice. Although I think I understand the path and the goal, I am not there. My main concern is the fact that I cannot maintain this state of be-ing, it usually occurs at the night when I am inspired and then in the morning. But it fades away because of internal and external conflicts. The internal ones are mini complexes i.e. a lack of direction, thinking and being in a way that I do not actually want, but also the external forces, for there is much friction between myself and the household, which is the immediate external world for myself, and one which I do not control as I am still at school. One such example is this morning when I was waking m mother came into my room and started saying something about some practical thing I neglected. I had been piecing together a dream in that state of like overlapping between conscious and unconscious mind, and this interrupted it. I recovered some details and it was in fact a dream about the battle and propsective union between the Great Mother archytpe and my own anima. Another thing is that my parents are always pushing me to be mediocre and small minded. They create a lot of ambient noise and such also hampering the attainment of these states. How does this conflict come into the Jungian Analysis?
I have a hunch that the solution comes from a union of the ego and the shadow. Both the Ego and the shadow have 'good' elements, ie those which will help the process of individuation. Perhaps for me the shadow elements are all those ideas and behaviours which others have been forcing upon me, some of which are needed for balance whilst the ego consists of ideas which I have already undersood, which I am attached to almost.
This angst has led to me becoming rather intolerant self-centred, my relationships are only based on what I take out of them not what I give. Perhaps that is an exaggeration but you know what I mean. What I see in you is a genuine desire to teach. This is because you have inhaled reality and oneness, you have processed and fully understood divinity, you are at one with yourself and what the human being is generally and now it is a natural consequence to exhale, to teach. Life is reflected in the breath. this is why Beethoven, Mozart and Bach and others were able to produce, at such a rate, such works of profound beauty. they were impelled to exhale, they had aken in the blessed state and they had discovered how to live it for each moment of their lives. this is why the bible was written, why Siddatha and Jesus were always teaching. Life is reflected in breath, and in the biblical sense (of course from a Jungian, individual standpoiint) the evil path is the path to suffocation.
Anyway, for me this is all idealism, and I am asking you to help me create reality, to fully understand, so that I can utilise the psychic energy in me to overcome the obstacles of the external.
A problem can be defined as two opposing purposes. The Oedipus complex is certainly a problem. One one hand you have this deep, consuming love and desire for union with the mother. On the other hand, there is an opposing desire for freedom and autonomy, and along with that comes hate and anger towards the mother. This problem can be boiled down to the struggle between freedom and attachment, and that is a deep and primal polarity. As far as identities are concerned, it is the battle between the boy and the man. A boy is attached, a man is free.
The relationship between the son and the mother is probably one of the most intimate, intense, close relationships a male will ever experience. And overcoming the Oedipal complex does not mean that one should annihilate this closeness. In fact, overcoming the Oedipus Complex is embracing this relationship.
The problem (as with every problem) comes down to a non-confront. A male is unwilling to confront his relationship with his mother. He is unwilling to confront his love, his desire for her. Therefore, he acts it out and dramatizes it. Because it's there whether he_wishes_to_see_it_or_not. And to compensate for his love and desire he develops anger and hatred for her.
The solution lies in a change of percentage. No longer is the male a boy a large percentage of the time. He now acts as a man. And the best thing about being a man: you never have to seek for anyone else's approval but your own.
Quirky little note:
To begin with, I am enjoying this thread. I also do think the interpretation that began it is wrong (well-thought-out, potentially enlightening for some, well-intentioned, just wrong for me).
For the interpretation I find "right' for me, keep your eyes peeled for a mutli-part post in the forums for h., 46+2, jimmy and right here. (I'm working on it; give me time. And I'm considering calling it "The big-ass non-mother-fucker-ing post-coital et al experience.)
All of that's just a bit of a tangent. I only wanted to point out that (potential connection for the Jung'uns*) the words spoken just before the beginning of this song are "keine eier," or "no eggs/balls." Castration anxiety seeming more likely, anyone?
*Read that aloud if you didn't get it the first time around.
you guys are taking the meaning of this song all wrong, please look in a different direction
If you think that everyone has it wrong, why don't you give us a direction that you think we should follow instead of just putting nothing to the ideas put forth?
yep, i agree. But i am pretty sure my brother's right about the Oedipal complex...these people taking much too practically, getting the father into it (imtheism, im looking at you). In fact, that archetype has not much to do with the general idea of this complex so thats not quite plausible.
Theres something about this thread. JTCrace is almost completely right about everything, im sure, because everything fits. he is one of those intelligent ones that understand almost all their stuff. They all endure unintelligent people that try to contradict them. Some just trashed them (www.geocities.com/noctoadal/), and some people (JTCrace) don't get angry and try to talk with them. Its actually quite funny, because you get this guy saying this dumbass reply and the intelligent replying and trying to explain. I've observed this on this thread. There has been two types of people on this thread. Intelligent (JTCrace, Luna Galapogas, mstajduh, elgyn, whale I etc.) and dumb (metamorphosis, ne pleurez pas etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), and thankfully the intelligence is talking more, meaning i get my brain fatter and step toward the collective unconscious. Thankyou..talk away!!!!!!!
right about everything except for the fact that the oedipus complex is a bunch of bullshit. Seriously, talk to any psychologist - or even better, talk to someone who TEACHES psychology. They will tell you the same thing.
Freud did a lot of good in setting the stage for psychology, and was the first person to touch on the id/ego/superego. Then there was also the human defense mechanisms he did (about 95% of the work was actually done by his daughter Anna, but he was overseeing it so he got credit. That happens with nearly all scholastic writing/research in terms of psych). But thats about all he did of worth. The psycho-sexual developement of a child is WAY OFF. GET THIS THRU YOUR FUCKING HEADS PEOPLE HE WAS WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
it doesnt suprise me that being his bro, you would of course suckle on him. Maybe you got fucked up in one of these said stages?
"because it fits" is possibley the worst explanation for something to be right. "Hey... My dick fits in this chick who I just raped... That means I was right in doing so." There is LOTS of shit that fits in with the catholic church and all their beliefs that are FUCKING WRONG. Just because they believe they are true, does not make them true. The same goes for you.
It's good to write in a provocative style, but it comes off as pretentious and arrogant to assume one "knows" the audience through some deeper understanding of himself. To suggest we're all "pussies" hunched over out monitors or whatever will have impact on those who fit the description, but will fall flat on everyone else. This style works well for "psychics" and fortune tellers but really kills philosophical works. Try to engage the audience in such a way as to get them to relate to an idea, but don't try to force it.
Jung, for example, writes in such metaphor that just about anything will fit it. Heidegger was the same way. As one scans over the text the reader will intuit more than comprehend, often mapping entirely different imagery to the ideas. The conceptual architecture is so symmetrical with these writers it resonates ideas and rings of truth. -until of course, one tries to map objective reality to the scheme and finds there's no way to do it.
The Eastern thinkers refined this methodology long ago with the I-ching type stuff. They give you the metaphor, you intuit the truth. Tarot works entirely on this principle (as far as I believe)
__________________ ...Genetic blends with uncertain ends on a fortune hunt that's far too fleet -Peart
I like that theory. I accept it. That may be because I haven't formulated one myself that I like or have deemed even feasible. But I like JTCrace and this theory.
The most effective communication is the one that can be easily duplicated. With a lot of what I have posted here, I have certainly been enforcing my communications. I know, from my own experiences, that many times getting the other person to duplicate what one is sending across requires force. Because of the obvious limitations of the online-discussion medium of communication, I decided that curiously suggesting, simply desiring a communication wouldn't be as effective as attempting to enforce it. And the response has been surprising. I have had so far two individuals message me personally, claiming to have similar experiences.
My sole purpose for initiating this thread was boredom. This shit excites me. Spiritual exploration is adventurous and fun, although obviously it can be extremely terrorifying at times.
Every male has an Oedipus complex. There is no way to go through countless existences without developing a complex towards "The Mother." In some males, it hardly even warrants attention. However, in other males, it literally can destroy their lives. And it was this latter group I was interested in beginning a real discussion with.
And Ming, your observation that my suggestion that we are all "pussies" will only arouse those that fit the description...wasn't that my point?
Every male has an Oedipus complex. There is no way to go through countless existences without developing a complex towards "The Mother." In some males, it hardly even warrants attention. However, in other males, it literally can destroy their lives. And it was this latter group I was interested in beginning a real discussion with.
speak for yourself. I personally have never felt any sort of sexual attraction to my mother. I'm sorry for those who have.
