In romaneste aici:

This entry is linked to some still to come with the main purpose of explaining first of all the Becali getting to jail and some press favorable articles about Atanasie Stanculescu (the convicted general for the army crimes against people in 1989 events). These two issues are specific to Romanian public life but analyzing them will help understand some features about contemporary global state. They seem totally different but at the closer look we will see that are very close related one another. But I will make this analyze in a future entry. For now I will make a deeper and more general analyze of social system.

In a metasocial approach the state works just like Unconscious that Freud described. Beyond the mincing and „spiritual” statements the state hides very practical, material and concrete intentions just like Unconscious does. The individual classical neurotic Unconscious that Freud described and the state Unconscious could not be separated because they both relate to the same system – the human being.

The first structure theory of human psychic system that Freud proposed (the so-called „first topography”) has many dynamic-explanatory and definition lacunas. Freud was aware of some of them and that is why he finally launched „the second topography”. But this „First Topography” is still very useful for introduction and description. Everybody understands something about the basics of psychical system even if „the first topography” is still a metaphor. I am not going to get into details here – that is not the purposes of this text – but if somebody wants to find out about it than can check the ”dynamics of abyssal psychology” I wrote. That characteristic of better communication makes me use Freud s „First Topography” in this text for a general description of some features of social system. I am sure that that couple of concepts form „First Topography” would not be enough for a detailed analyze of social system but it is ideal for the text here.

The psychic from „First Topography” is defined as an ensemble of conscious and unconscious forces that struggle for influence of behavior, thinking and feelings. The Unconscious of slave that became bourgeois and who develops neurosis as Freud described is only a part of human kind collective Unconscious; the psychopathological part. The slave’s unconscious and the master’s have the same principle but works differently and have different results.

The development and evolution of Psychopathological Unconscious described by Freud is closely related with the crude reality of slave-master hermetical society and the robbery that take place between these two big social actors. The inequity of such ugly situation relays not only in the robbery itself that flagrantly contradicts the fundamental basis of human ethical spirit but it also has the ambition that this robbery should be forgotten by omission or by metaphisicsing it into heavens with the classical culture. At the Romanian countryside – there where the medieval costumes and mentalities can be seen easier – some parents threaten their children if crying with more punishment after beating them. That is the way that classical culture deals with their slaves: after stealing their products with no shame and regrets the classical state douse not forget to come at the end with the last threaten that that kind of wild parents does to their child: „quite!”

The classical culture fully represents this cynical short-sightedness required by authorities. Despites of that the classical culture is oversaturated by angels, elegant manners , white immaculate gloves or The Good (master) that defeat The Evil (the slave). The classical culture is just like a mafia guy that smoothly takes away the dirt on his coat after a crime. All these affectations are meant to cynically hide this big as Pacific Ocean truth that nobody sees it any more after dealing with classical culture.

The acceptance and assume of such reality as a social class is similar to abreaction of neurosis symptom inside individual. The Resistance of social system is stronger than its victim – the neurotic person. When the aristoctraoid mentalities positioned against psychoanalytical theories it was mainly because of two reasons:

1. 
   Inside of aristocratoid mentality there is just none of those elements found in neurotical Unconscious described by Freud because that mentality has no transgenerational social frustrations of slaves. On the contrary is the aristocratoid mentality that builds its wealth and its cynical world detachment over the slave mentality. That aristocratoid mentality produces such pain to neurotics and to the majority of the mental disordered people.
2. The existence of an Unconscious that does different and contradictory things to what actually says might raise questions about the way society actually works beyond nice statements.

For now it is as clear as the daylight that the Unconscious scandal is larger than so-called “Ego defense mechanisms” described by Freud. The Unconscious scandal was and still is today a matter of political battle because the democratically painted aristocrats desperately fight for the historical social favors that might slip away with contemporary slaves waking up. The psychoanalysis stroke the foundation of classical culture. For a couple of terms that he invented in psychology and for applying to psychology some old theories – maybe nicer and more precisely told by their authors – Jung gained the “prophet” degree and social system invested with culture in such a figure in order to take Freud’s Unconscious down.*

When one actually sees that the psychic comes from deeper than childhood as Jung saw, when one sees its cultural specificity and heredity but still remain blind to the explanation of psychic genealogy as social historic tensions than that is not humanism but hypocrisy. What Jung did is very similar to what the majority of humanists did: a hermetic humanism. That is a false humanism. There is no cynical humanism but a superficial and false one.

It is clear that even Freud did not dig enough here. That is because mainly Freud was a physician and tended to see only medical part of it but loosing the holistic view and staying under a structuralist cartesianism instead of placing the individual deep into society where s/he belongs. Freud was unable to see the genesis of mental disorder outside of family, was unable to extrapolate the familial microsociety into metasocial level and that is why he understood the psychopathology under this limited field of analysis. By doing so Freud only mended in a medical terms some traditional theories that stated the infantile origin of mental disorder.

The two sided of Collective Unconscious represents the mutilation that the double side measurements civilization – as the classical and contemporary civilizations are – caused to humanity: the slaves and the masters. There is no other such splitting creature on Earth as human being is. If nature wants by its very base to combine such separated parts of worlds it is the civilization that keeps separating them systematically. There is no such a thing even in the mechanical inorganic nature. Even the sexes that nature created different one from another still they keep attracting and continuously communicate each other for sharing the information, requirements and tasks. On the contrary, the classical and contemporary state hates this natural reality and struggle as a cancerous disease to keep up this unnatural separation between slaves and masters.

In the next entry I will describe the cultural mercenaries that make this entire nightmare possible, those that are paid by real masters to supervise the slaves, to convince them to work for masters and to clean up the foot-marks and to create such of image strategies that the fine thieves to be perceived as angels.
*The paroxysm of such hypocrisy was the fact that as high society world culture invested a lot in theories that opposite psychoanalysis in the same time Edward Barnays was working the contemporary mind control and collective manipulation monstrous machinery using such theories first stated by psychoanalysis.

english version here:

Acest articol este legat de inca cateva la finalul carora imi doresc sa explic mai intai arestarea lui Becali iar apoi articolele din presa favorabile la adresa lui Atanasie Stanculescu (generalul condamnat pentru crimele armatei impotriva cetatenilor in evenimentele din 1989) . Cele doua evenimente par total diferite insa ele sunt mult mai legate unul de altul decat pare la prima vedere. Dar despre analiza lor directa ma voi ocupa intr-unul dintre articolele viitoare. Deocmdata voi face o analiza ceva mai profunda si mai generala a sistemului social.

Statul functioneaza la nivel metasocial exact ca Inconstientul descris de Freud care, sub declaratii fandosite si „spirituale” ascunde intentii dintre cele mai concrete si mai practice. Inconstientul clasic individual nevroticoid descris de Freud si cel metasocial al claselor sociale nu pot fi doua lucruri diferite deoarece ambele sunt manifestari ale aceluiasi sistem- omul.

Prima teoretizare in structuri a psihicului omenesc (topica) propusa de Freud are multe lacune dinamic-explicative si de definire – drept pentru care el a lansat pana la urma cea de-a doua topica. Insa aceasta „prima topica” e foarte buna la nivel pur descriptiv, introductiv. Toata lumea intelege ceva din esenta functionarii psihicului chiar daca ea e mai mult o metafora. Nu intru in detalii aici, am facut-o in ”Dinamica psihologiei abisale”. Din acest motiv am sa folosesc si eu prima topica in acest articol menit sa descrie cititorilor ceva particular din sistemul psihicului. Recunosc ca ea e insuficienta pentru o analiza amanuntita a sistemului social insa pentru acest articol ea e ideala.

Psihicul dupa prima topica este un ansamblu de forte constiente si inconstiente care se lupta pentru influenta in comportament, gandire si sentimente. Inconstientul scalvului imburghezit cel dezvoltator de nevroza asa cum l-a descris Freud este doar o parte din Inconstientul umanitatii respectiv partea sa (psiho)patologica. Desi are aceleasi principii, Inconstientul stapanilor functioneaza cu totul altfel decat cel al sclavilor. Aparitia Inconstientului psihopatoid descris de el este dat de stricta realitate a scindarii sociale sclav-stapan si a jafului la care primul este supus de catre al doilea. Mizeria unei astfel de situatii este data nu doar de jaful in sine care contrazice legea fundamentala a spiritului etic uman ci si pretentia ca acest jaf sa fie uitat fie prin omisiune fie prin metafizicarea lui, prin ridicarea in slavi a sa pe care sistemul, cultura clasica o face. La tara – acolo unde mentalitatea medievala se poate vedea mai bine – unii parinti isi ameninta copiii ca vor primi si mai multa bataie daca plang dupa ce au primit prima portie de pedeapsa corporala. Cam asa face si cultura clasica: dupa ce ii fura sclavului cu dezinvoltura produsele statul calsic nu uita sa adauge in final: „ai tacut?”

Cultura clasica reprezinta pe deplin acest miopism cinic pe care sistemul il implica. Cultura clasica este plina de ingeri, de maniere elegante, de manusi, de binele (stapanul) care invinge raul (sclavul). Cultura clasica seamana cu gesturile unui mafiot care isi sterge tacticos praful de pe haina dupa ce a executat o amenintare pentru plata taxei de protectie. Toate aceste pretiozitati sunt menite sa ascunda in mod cinic acest adevar mare cat Oceanul Pacific dar pe care aproape ca nu-l mai vede nimeni. Acesta este inconstientul aristocratoid diferit de cel nevroticoid al sclavului.

Recunoasterea si asumarea unei astfel de realitati la nivel de clasa este similara cu abreactia simptomului nevrotic la nivel individual. Rezistenta sistemului este mult mai puternica decat a victimei sale – nevroticul. Atunci cand partea aristocratoida a lumii s-a manifestat impotriva teoriilor psihanalitice, ea o facea din doua motive:

1. Pur si simplu in mentalitatea lor aristocratoida nu exista sau exista doar intr-o foarte mica masura realitatile nevropatice descrise de Freud deoarece stilul ei de viata nu are frustrarile transgenealogice ale acestora. Dimpotriva mentalitatea aristocratoida chiar isi cladeste bunastarea si „detasarea” cinica fata de lume pe stilul de viata al sclavului. Tocmai ea este aceea care le provoaca nevroticilor si majoritatii psihopatilor asemenea suferinta.
2. Existenta unui Inconstient care una spune si alta face ar fi putut pune semne de intrebare asupra modului in care functioneaza societatea dincolo de declaratiile inocente ale autoritatilor.

In acest moment pentru mine e clar ca lumina zilei ca scandalul Inconstientului depasit cu mult granitele unui „mecanism de aparare al Eului” asa cum l-a descris Freud. Scandalul Inconstientului a fost si inca este o batalie politica unde aristocratii vopsiti s-au vazuti in postura disperata de a pierde favorurile sociale istorice ca urmare a colapsarii culturii clasice produsa de psihanaliza. Pentru cativa termeni introdusi in vocabularul de specialitate si pentru vopsirea psihologica a unor teorii exprimate poate mai frumos si poate chiar mai clar de alti ganditori din trecut Jung a primit titlul onorific de „profet” iar sistemul a investit profund in el. *

Atunci cand vezi ca psihicul vine de dincolo de copilarie asa cum a vazut Jung, atunci cand vezi ereditatea si specificitatea culturala a psihicului dar ramai in continuare imun la tensiunile sociale in explicarea genealogiei psihicului trebuie ca esti un ipocrit nu umanist. Ce a facut Jung este cam ceea ce a facut majoritatea umanistilor: un ermetic umanism. Adica un fals umanism. Nu exista un umanism cinic ci doar un fals sau superficial umanism.

Evident ca nici Freud n-a sapat prea mult aici. Ca medic Freud a fost inclinat sa o vada doar pe aceasta si sa ramana prizonierului unui cartezianism structuralist in loc sa bage individul in societate acolo unde ii este locul. Freud nu a putut intelege geneza tulburarii psihice in afara familiei, nu a putut extinde microsocialul familial la metasocial si astfel a preferat sa inteleaga psihopatologia relativ doar la acest domeniu restrans. Facand astfel el a recurs practic la carpirea medicalista a niste teorii traditionale despre originea infantila a tulburarii psihice.

Dublul Inconstient Colectiv reprezinta mutilarea pe care civilizatia jumatatilor de masura asa cum este cea clasica si contemporana a produs-o umanitatii: sclavii si stapanii. Nu exista pe nicaieri vreo specie cunoscuta impartita in doua astfel de entitati. Natura vrea sa le amestece asa cum face ea de obicei iar civilizatia si cultura le blocheaza sistematic. Nici macar in natura la nivel de mecanica bruta un sistem izolat nu exista. In ce masura sexele pe care natura le-a creat pentru o cat mai eficienta perpetuare a speciei se reunesc si se atrag continuu, comunica unul cu altul si isi impart unul altuia informatiile, cerintele si sarcinile. Dimpotriva, statul clasic si contemporan este acea excrescenta cancerigena a civilizatiei menite sa izoleze stapanii de sclavi .

In urmatorul articol voi analiza mercenarii culturali, despre cei care sunt platiti de stapani sa supravegheze sclavii, sa ii convinga sa munceasca pentru stapani si sa stearga urmele jafului, sa creeze astfel de strategii de imagine incat hotii sa fie prezentati istoriei drept ingeri.


*Ipocrizia maxima a sistemului consta in faptul ca in timp ce „lumea fina” investea substantial in teorii opuse psihanalizei in acelasi timp un Edward Barnays crea monstruoasa masinarie contemporana de manipulare si control al mintii colective cu ajutorul teoriilor pe care de fapt la nivel declarativ ea le combatea.