>For something that don't exist, the self sure turns up a lot as an object
of
>discussion around here. Does wondering about the ontology of something
grant
>it, ipso facto, existence?
>
>jd
because the beings are minds who like dwelling on their own electric,
flashing, intangible "fields" in the beautiful saintly and luminous void
which was given.
because they are essence, intangible chaste and rarefied as morning air or
unsolvable and opaque like thick fog in a gloomy northern Italian winter.
because they are multiple and chaotic as the languages in the tower of
Babel.
and because they can also be new as words on the lips of a new born.
because they are as ethereal as a song sung by Caruso, vague, wiped out,
effaced. because they are phonetic alleys.
(nevertheless, some narrow and brutal urgencies in the day time do occur,
like drives and appetites, with the supposed "self" eventually
incriminated for the preferences and dislikes one expresses.
The Self or otherwise called the "Ego" (a term Freud fashioned, in his
second theory of the psychic apparatus, and which is distinguished from the
Super-Ego (the author of the narrative I am talking about) and the Es. The
self ("Ego") has , I think, a moderately plain control over perception,
behaviour, logical thinking, and so on...(the Self is the “actor” I was
referring to, the pirandellian mask, or the supposedly obedient child).
On the other hand, the Es (the rebel, the outsider) exercises control over
primary innate instincts such as self-defence. Freud believed that the self
enjoys a certain autonomy (that in the particular case of my self is
almost nihil , given the great impact of my Super-Io, my Daddy - over my
behaviour and logical thinking) The self also seems to believe that it
has a greater control over reality than the Es. The Self is Plato. The Es
is Lucifer. The Super-Ego is God (my Daddy).
Erminia
|