Genie Singh Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 What is the sangats thought on Sigmund Freud his theories are promoted heavily in the west and in psychology which rules out religion and promotes sex. His theories have come into sikh masses of even promoting sexual conduct on impulse rather the self controlled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud Could anyone have these challenged in the mainstream? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSD1 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Freud is already discreditted. i cant remember the paper, but it seems a lot of our behaviour is down to genetics and neural biochemistry. His main ideas, like the Oedipus theory, are not as sound as they once were. Try looking into more modern research and you'll see the ideas of the early 20th century European establishments are increasingly obsolete. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 'but it seems a lot of our behaviour is down to genetics and neural biochemistry' comments like this scare me, Freud put all neurosis and irrational behaviour down to suppressed sex power. Now the priests of science inform us that all human behaviour can be explained by the random interaction of molecules. Another victory for the dark forces of science in the ongoing quest to estrange the Conscious Knowing Human Soul from its rightful Home, towards the chaos and randomness and chance that characterise the world we inhabit. As regards Freud I have not read his works, the little I know of him is through his former disciple CG Jung who split famously with Freud. The split occurred due to Jung realising that the unconscious part of the personality is in contact with something unrelated to the personal psyche, which he later called the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious works through archetypes or typical-forms that manifest according the personality's conceits. Freud recognised this but because he was a weak personality he was scared of this fact. And encouraged Jung to use the sexual theory as a bulwark against the black tide of occultism, by this Freud meant the hidden powerful and impersonal aspects of the psyche. Jung refused and set up his own school of analytical psychology where he used ancient myths and eastern ideas and ideas of mysticism and alchemy to help his understanding of the human psyche. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSD1 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 towards the chaos and randomness and chance that characterise the world we inhabit. If the scientists are analysing our genes and brain chemistry, how does this lead to chaos/randomness/chance? None of those are related to scientific principles. As regards Freud I have not read his works, the little I know of him is through his former disciple CG Jung who split famously with Freud. The split occurred due to Jung realising that the unconscious part of the personality is in contact with something unrelated to the personal psyche, which he later called the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious works through archetypes or typical-forms that manifest according the personality's conceits. Freud recognised this but because he was a weak personality he was scared of this fact. And encouraged Jung to use the sexual theory as a bulwark against the black tide of occultism, by this Freud meant the hidden powerful and impersonal aspects of the psyche. Jung refused and set up his own school of analytical psychology where he used ancient myths and eastern ideas and ideas of mysticism and alchemy to help his understanding of the human psyche. 20th century men with 20th century views. It may scare you that all their theories can now be explained by molecules within one's head but that's just the way it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 "20th century men with 20th century views. It may scare you that all their theories can now be explained by molecules within one's head but that's just the way it is. " It scares me because i understand, unfortunately, what the result of such thinking will be. I pity and feel sorry for those who follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, which will be nothing other than scizophrenia and schism from ones own self. The theory that all conscious thought arises from molecular combinations, will put the adherent of this mode of thought in the peculiar position of rejecting his own experience of self awareness as an epiphenomena of physical molecular structure. But due to the relative indestructability of the spiritual-self, adherents of this theory will not be able to destroy themselves immediately, but this theory will be like a saw with which the adherent saws the branch they are sitting on, until maybe after many lifetimes they are maybe successful in destroying themselves, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSD1 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 The scale of how genetics and biochemistry affect our mind is unknown but points out that most of 20th century thinking is wrong. Comparing the two is like contrasting the difference between how the medieval europeans and modern day europeans view the stars and our solar system. As for the spiritual aspect, it could be argued that many people in the east dont even understand spirituality themselves, they just know how to act it out. The Spiritual Cyborg stuff also hints that the West isnt as spiritually bankrupt as they think they are. They werent that spiritual in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 "The scale of how genetics and biochemistry affect our mind is unknown but points out that most of 20th century thinking is wrong." Its a debated point whether genetics and biochemistry affect mind or mind affects genetics and biochemistry. By mind I do not mean individual personal mind. There is also the field of epigenetics which rejects the 'primacy of DNA' which is the theory orthodox scientists follow. Epigenetics allows for external affects upon DNA which can change its chemical composition. The view of scientists is myopic it focuses on a certain specialism and presents this view as universal. To say most of 20th century thinking is wrong when viewed from this specialist narrow viewpoint is correct but then to project this narrow viewpoint as a universal truth is a misrepresentation. On reflection, when I think about it, to say all 20th C thought is wrong is an absolutely amazing statement to make, have you presumably read or familiarised yourself with every branch of thought conceived of in the last century? Or does it not matter because the 'key' to all knowledge has been found in genetics and biochemistry! Why most people dont understand spirituality is because it has been removed from everyday life and experience, forcibly, by scientific statements along the lines of - consciousness and human experience is caused by molecules and inert physical matter - this message which is repeated like a mantra through various media, has people doubting their own experiences, and people, maybe even experiencing objective real mental events put them down to imagination or chemical imablances or some other nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Comparing the two is like contrasting the difference between how the medieval europeans and modern day europeans view the stars and our solar system. Well actually they both view them in exactly the same way because we live on Earth and we see the Sun rise in the east and set in the west. The same stars make up the sky at night now as 400 years ago. The difference is not in reality but only in conception. All that seperates us from our ancestors is an act of imagination, or to use the old english word for imagination; all that seperates us is our conceit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Singh Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I remember reading a newspaper once which said we should encourage everyone to have sex quoting off freud saying it is unhealthy to stop kids from having sex. It should be encouraged, it is quite common opinion some parents give condoms to even daughter encouraging them and calling there boyfriends over give them food, drink and letting them deal their own daughter. Some encourage son to go out and do it, so parents teaching the use of safe sex not to have kids yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laal Singh Posted March 16, 2023 Report Share Posted March 16, 2023 The energy he is referring to is not sexual energy, but creative energy. It could go toward sex as sexual acts are parts of procreation. The whole function of sex is procreation. It is rampant while we are young and it depletes as we grow older. The same energy could be used for other positive and noble reasons. Channelling your whole energy towards sexual acts is like wasting your anmol manukh janam. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.