PSYCHOAN Archives

Psychoanalysis

PSYCHOAN@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
William Theaux <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Psychoanalysis <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:10:09 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
(the 100 lines rule stroke again - and I confess to Amon God of Rules that I
did not count how many lines I divided my first post in two. So the first
division of the second mail was still rejected - so I guess I have to divide
it again; yet and by the way, as my software can count it now, it was a 90
lines message that was rejected by the 100 lines rule. This is to say how
much we must be under the rule)

So here it is


----------------------------------

(the 100 rules was strenuous this time - here is a better attempt: ((that
was the introduction of the first division)) )





Between ++++ is part of a message which is complete at
http://www.egroups.com/message/akhnaton/1003

   I post this part is the present Psy.Elist for it is related to the
current issue about the way Psychoanalysis is carrying up a new degree in
science (as Freud suggested in The Future of an Illusion, Discomfort in
Civilization etc…)

   I invite psychoanalysts to consider the information in this list
http://www.egroups.com/messages/akhnaton
   For it is a place where many questions about the step Freud attempted
with Moses and Monotheism. Especially are considered the role of Velikovsky,
a psychoanalyst who identified by 1960, Oedipus with Akhnaton (after
K.Abraham who first suggested this identification) - and the contribution of
the Egyptologist Osman who made possible the identification of Akhnaton as
Moses.

   I am sure there is no use in explaining why this is mostly interesting
for psychoanalysts; so I just go ahead and proceed the theorization as
follow:


++++++++++++++++++

Daniel asks:
>Do you differentiate between the individual Unconscious
>and the collective Unconscious?
Adrian says:
>we cannot interpret a historical event in the light of
>modern "rational" styles of analysis of our psyche.
>Besides I don't accept "THE unconscious"

   We are on the path today where the inner world, Psyche, the ego, and the
outer world are merging, combining in a new way. The notion of ‘environment’
is changing (as notion of space changed around 1600). Individual or
collective, the Unconscious is a drop or an



TO BE FOLLOWED in    My Lacanian God! part 2

ATOM RSS1 RSS2