Freudian Slippage

Overheard at Lem's:

Trooper York said...

DBQ if you want to put it in Western Terms then Reince is Ransome Stoddard. Bannon is Tom Doniphon. Only this time he is going to get the girl.

November 14, 2016 at 12:57 PM

Trooper York said...

To put it in psychological terms:

Reince is Trump's ego.

Bannon is Trump's id.

November 14, 2016 at 12:59 PM

_______________

I beg your pardon? This equates Reince/Ransome as the Ego and Bannon/Doniphon as the Id.
Two wrongs in my book.

My understanding of Freud's original construct is:

More here

In that sketch, the "Environment" is the so-called Super-Ego -- the collective do-gooding force...the Church & the Law, etc. The Super-Ego informs the Ego from above; the Id impels the Ego from below.

Another view is the familiar meme:

Link to original

In that sketch, the devil (Id) and the angel (Super-Ego) inform the Ego.

In the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the Id, the Ego, and the Super Ego of the Old West are portrayed by Liberty Valance, Tom Doniphon, and Ransome Stoddard respectively. Valance is irrational, impulsive, and entirely self-interested; Stoddard personifies The Law and Rules and is the Super-Ego. Tom Doniphon mediates the two forces and is the Ego.

The Ego is often derided as a bad thing: "Oh he's so egotistical." How did modern culture so lose sight of Freud's original intent? The Ego is not the selfish Id, nor is it the selfless Super-Ego.

To circle back and to correct Troop's analogy: Bannon is the bad-boy Id and Reince is the good-boy Super-Ego.

Donald Trump is caught between them; he is The Ego -- but you knew that already.

Freud slips back into the mainstream

"The unconscious has had a bumpy ride since Sigmund Freud first described the extent of his discoveries in a seminal paper published 100 years ago this month. Sceptics sneer at its mention, assuming it’s as discreditable as penis envy. Others, who sense the father of psychoanalysis was on to something, prefer to hedge their bets and not be tarnished by Freud’s mixed reputation: they refer limply to the subliminal or subconscious. Yet it could be the case that far from being past its sell-by date, the time of the unconscious is yet to come.                        

The science, though, is building to challenge this view. One line of research examines certain amnesic conditions in which patients fabricate memories and deny they can’t recall what actually happened. Such confabulations have been shown to follow the rules that Freud identified in a dynamic unconscious. They carry meaning. Alternatively, there are those who suffer from paraphasia, a syndrome in which forgotten words are substituted by others. The substitutions similarly show patterns that mirror those Freud detected in dreams and slips. The evidence is that repression is a key characteristic of the unconscious.

...But Freud’s central idea on conversion disorders – namely that a trauma, or perceived trauma, lies at the origin – is now routinely shown to have clinical efficacy...When you examine patient histories carefully...the dissociations and meaning of the symptoms often emerge...As Kanaan put it, if Freud had referred to PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) rather than hysteria, he would now be remembered as a pioneering hero.

No one is saying that the unconscious is a magic bullet. These are often complex conditions. Freud himself stressed that working with the unconscious is painstaking precisely because it is unconscious. Further, psychoanalysis has itself radically revised Freud’s original conclusions. But it now holds a century of wisdom on engaging this hidden and sometimes devastatingly powerful part of ourselves. Freud believed his work was only a beginning. Scientific research and sheer human need suggest we should energetically continue what he started.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/sigmund-freud-unconscious-theories?CMP=fb_gu