YO Mamma.. U Abject I honor?

[Family Court Strategies: When Your Partner Has BPD OR NPD Traits.]

Once upon a time, the other day, I stumbled upon the following quote by Psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva, "To each ego its object[ ] to each superego its abject[   ]." This in one short sentence sums up perfectly what I was describing a while back of the inherit faults of many of the veins within the manosphere. When I initially described it, it was a cathartic process of Identifying with the abjected parts of the underlying ideologies that were presented, which is the manifestation of the archetypal wounded healer, and was in turn abjected due to not being of a dialectic nature. Further reinforcing a social order which implies catharsis be expressed within a narrow margin which is deemed socially acceptable.

So, what am I even saying? First, lets break down that quote a bit.  I think we are all familiar with the western concept of the ego, which is the "I" we identify with as our core self in our conscious state.  I am not referring to the Eastern concept of ego and whatever associations one has with that. So the ego, or "I" is the subject and the object refered to is the object of desire, known as "objet petit a," within Lacanian psychoanalysis. Object petit a is the object which the subject desires to fuse, attach or posses in order to feel whole and complete. Within the manosphere, which I will use to illustrate because that is where I felt out this structure initially, "objet petit a" is the submissive sexualized infantile impulsive female schema.

Within the manosphere there is a lot of talk of becoming or self actualizing as the Alpha male.  There is many branches of the manosphere that have alternative definitions of what constitutes an alpha male, what remains constant is that the "alpha male" signifies the ideal ego state. Within the manosphere or any selfhelp section of a book store will be plenty of ideologies selling you the way to become the ideal you, to quote daft punk "bigger stronger faster," or the south park parody, "bigger longer and uncut." The ideology creates a schematic framework from which to perceive reality where it controls the image of what is the ego ideal and the path to achieve that end on the part of the subject. On bpdfamily the term often used that is nearly synominous with the lfruedian "ego ideal" is the "false self." In the film fight club Tyler Durden, Brad pitts character, who represents Edward Nortons characters Ideal ego is revealed does not even exist, implying that the thing for which we strive to become, the ideal ego, is an illusion and self improvement to become the ego ideal a delusion, thus Tyler Durden states, "Self improvement is masturbation,"  So, the subject that identifies oneself as the ego ideal and believes they are in control, as so often portrayed within the works of Shakespeare is the foolish fool or the idiot and exposed as such by the jester or trickster figure within the play. Within fight club the idiot being the grand spectacle we all partake in and are enslaved to by our debt based fiat system. Shakespeare refers to the grand spectacle in his play "As You Like It," with the famous line, "All the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players."

Anyway back to the manosphere within its ideological framework the objet petit a which is often refered to as a "plate" is needed for it is its gaze which enables the subject to see themself as the "alpha male," in other words the fruedian ego ideal, the Winnicotian false self or the Shakespearian idiot.  The very act of sex within the ideological framework put forth by the manosphere is a selfish masterbatory process of validating an idiotic delusion. But what about when the objects gaze is not their to validate the subject as the ego ideal? For without that gaze the ego would be subject to the contemptuous critical gaze of the super ego, often refered to on bpdfamily as the "inner critic," the critical parent schema, or the punitive parent schema, which brings me to,"To each superego its abject."

Abjection means that which is separated or cut off from the rest within psychoanalysis it means the disowned parts of the self that would disrupt the symbolic order of the ideological schematic framework that constitute the coordinates of the subjects perception of reality. So within the ideology of the manosphere the ego when under the gaze of the superego and/or big other, the big other being the  critical gaze of the grand spectacle, without the gaze of the object to validate the ego as the ideal ego, and the ego experiencing pain is what is refered to as a "beta male." They, being those that have adapted the manosphere ideology, seek to avoid this pain by projecting these painful undesirable affective states into the abject. The manosphere identifies the abject as, the femenists, feminism, the feminazi and beta males. Beta males being the male castrated by the big other and the superego, although the manosphere misidentifies those as anything that abjects to its ego ideal state reminding the ego of the pain from which it runs and creates a "boundary," by utlizing the tactic of "keeping frame," while assuming the schema of critical parent and projecting the disowned undesirable emotions onto the external abject labled beta male or feminist. They may learn that in order to better keep frame and being identified as utilizing, possibly in their own ignorance, a Narcisistic ideology that they refrain from openly utilizing the terms beta male and feminazi to be more "politically correct." Implying the very concept of political correctness only serves to reinforce and obscure narcissistic ideologies.

This same tactic is common practice within cults in which they cut off all connections within anyone that brings their ideology into a critical light.  The abject that disrupts the symbolic order of the grand spectacle in which the ego uses an ideology to identify the subject as an ideal ego to escape from the pain inherent  to the human condition, or at least the condition the humans finds themselves within the greater system we exist in today. That is the problem I have with the term boundaries their is no universal meaning and it can signify something very different to each person and something possibly harmful and inherently abusive depending on the underlying ideology of the individual utilizing the term. So within the symbolic order an individual may be gathering validation to abuse others but use fluffy language and claim they are setting boundaries so they can experience their own personal nirvana, all the while the individual themselves is possibly ignorant of this because they have been seduced by an ideology that enables them to view themselves in this ideallic state and those that would make them aware of the pain from which they run become immediately viewed as the abject to be discarded to perpetuate their delusion.

Julia Kristeva, to paraphrase, mentions that it is the symbolic or internal fantasy image of the Mother that contains the abjected parts of the ego because as an infant we must abject from the mother to form a seperate identity.  So in this light it makes perfect sense why the men who have adopted the ideology of the manosphere would be attracted to it as to abject from the internal fantasy mother image, which Carl Jung identified as the Anima. The issue is the chasing of this narcissistic delusional ideal ego when really it should be the preparation for the ego to be able to enter the realm of the abject sacrificing or crucifying the ideal ego and to reconnect with the anima, in other words the alchemical marriage.

"I came out to watch you play why are you running away?" -- Maynard James Keenan

[Blimblam]

Once upon a time, the other day, I stumbled upon the following quote by Psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva, "To each ego its object[ ] to each superego its abject[   ]." This in one short sentence sums up perfectly what I was describing a while back of the inherit faults of many of the veins within the manosphere. When I initially described it, it was a cathartic process of Identifying with the abjected parts of the underlying ideologies that were presented, which is the manifestation of the archetypal wounded healer, and was in turn abjected due to not being of a dialectic nature. Further reinforcing a social order which implies catharsis be expressed within a narrow margin which is deemed socially acceptable.

So, what am I even saying? First, lets break down that quote a bit.  I think we are all familiar with the western concept of the ego, which is the "I" we identify with as our core self in our conscious state.  I am not referring to the Eastern concept of ego and whatever associations one has with that. So the ego, or "I" is the subject and the object refered to is the object of desire, known as "objet petit a," within Lacanian psychoanalysis. Object petit a is the object which the subject desires to fuse, attach or posses in order to feel whole and complete. Within the manosphere, which I will use to illustrate because that is where I felt out this structure initially, "objet petit a" is the submissive sexualized infantile impulsive female schema.

Within the manosphere there is a lot of talk of becoming or self actualizing as the Alpha male.  There is many branches of the manosphere that have alternative definitions of what constitutes an alpha male, what remains constant is that the "alpha male" signifies the ideal ego state. Within the manosphere or any selfhelp section of a book store will be plenty of ideologies selling you the way to become the ideal you, to quote daft punk "bigger stronger faster," or the south park parody, "bigger longer and uncut." The ideology creates a schematic framework from which to perceive reality where it controls the image of what is the ego ideal and the path to achieve that end on the part of the subject. On bpdfamily the term often used that is nearly synominous with the lfruedian "ego ideal" is the "false self." In the film fight club Tyler Durden, Brad pitts character, who represents Edward Nortons characters Ideal ego is revealed does not even exist, implying that the thing for which we strive to become, the ideal ego, is an illusion and self improvement to become the ego ideal a delusion, thus Tyler Durden states, "Self improvement is masturbation,"  So, the subject that identifies oneself as the ego ideal and believes they are in control, as so often portrayed within the works of Shakespeare is the foolish fool or the idiot and exposed as such by the jester or trickster figure within the play. Within fight club the idiot being the grand spectacle we all partake in and are enslaved to by our debt based fiat system. Shakespeare refers to the grand spectacle in his play "As You Like It," with the famous line, "All the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players."

Anyway back to the manosphere within its ideological framework the objet petit a which is often refered to as a "plate" is needed for it is its gaze which enables the subject to see themself as the "alpha male," in other words the fruedian ego ideal, the Winnicotian false self or the Shakespearian idiot.  The very act of sex within the ideological framework put forth by the manosphere is a selfish masterbatory process of validating an idiotic delusion. But what about when the objects gaze is not their to validate the subject as the ego ideal? For without that gaze the ego would be subject to the contemptuous critical gaze of the super ego, often refered to on bpdfamily as the "inner critic," the critical parent schema, or the punitive parent schema, which brings me to,"To each superego its abject."

Abjection means that which is separated or cut off from the rest within psychoanalysis it means the disowned parts of the self that would disrupt the symbolic order of the ideological schematic framework that constitute the coordinates of the subjects perception of reality. So within the ideology of the manosphere the ego when under the gaze of the superego and/or big other, the big other being the  critical gaze of the grand spectacle, without the gaze of the object to validate the ego as the ideal ego, and the ego experiencing pain is what is refered to as a "beta male." They, being those that have adapted the manosphere ideology, seek to avoid this pain by projecting these painful undesirable affective states into the abject. The manosphere identifies the abject as, the femenists, feminism, the feminazi and beta males. Beta males being the male castrated by the big other and the superego, although the manosphere misidentifies those as anything that abjects to its ego ideal state reminding the ego of the pain from which it runs and creates a "boundary," by utlizing the tactic of "keeping frame," while assuming the schema of critical parent and projecting the disowned undesirable emotions onto the external abject labled beta male or feminist. They may learn that in order to better keep frame and being identified as utilizing, possibly in their own ignorance, a Narcisistic ideology that they refrain from openly utilizing the terms beta male and feminazi to be more "politically correct." Implying the very concept of political correctness only serves to reinforce and obscure narcissistic ideologies.

This same tactic is common practice within cults in which they cut off all connections within anyone that brings their ideology into a critical light.  The abject that disrupts the symbolic order of the grand spectacle in which the ego uses an ideology to identify the subject as an ideal ego to escape from the pain inherent  to the human condition, or at least the condition the humans finds themselves within the greater system we exist in today. That is the problem I have with the term boundaries their is no universal meaning and it can signify something very different to each person and something possibly harmful and inherently abusive depending on the underlying ideology of the individual utilizing the term. So within the symbolic order an individual may be gathering validation to abuse others but use fluffy language and claim they are setting boundaries so they can experience their own personal nirvana, all the while the individual themselves is possibly ignorant of this because they have been seduced by an ideology that enables them to view themselves in this ideallic state and those that would make them aware of the pain from which they run become immediately viewed as the abject to be discarded to perpetuate their delusion.

Julia Kristeva, to paraphrase, mentions that it is the symbolic or internal fantasy image of the Mother that contains the abjected parts of the ego because as an infant we must abject from the mother to form a seperate identity.  So in this light it makes perfect sense why the men who have adopted the ideology of the manosphere would be attracted to it as to abject from the internal fantasy mother image, which Carl Jung identified as the Anima. The issue is the chasing of this narcissistic delusional ideal ego when really it should be the preparation for the ego to be able to enter the realm of the abject sacrificing or crucifying the ideal ego and to reconnect with the anima, in other words the alchemical marriage.

"I came out to watch you play why are you running away?" -- Maynard James Keenan

[eeks]

My therapist is a psychoanalyst.  And my reading comprehension is pretty good (although I struggle with philosophy). So, I sort-of follow you here.  I am going to respond in general, not just to "manosphere" themes.

There's a little phrase you hear now and again, "Wounds created in relationship have to be healed in relationship".  I always thought that was not necessarily true (things do not always need to be removed in the context in which they were created) or at minimum oversimplified.  However, after more experience I personally think it would be very difficult if not impossible to "stop chasing the ideal ego" other than in a relationship with a skilled therapist.  A healthy intimate relationship would help a lot, I can say that friends who are also committed to self-awareness have helped me, but I find that alone, I can explore or "fill out" the parts of me that are already part of my repertoire, but when it comes to really identifying the "forbidden" feelings/experiences/traits (the ones that generate anxiety, sometimes even to the point that I'm not aware of the preceding feeling, just the anxiety) that's been with a therapist.

There are some personal growth models that suggest that you have to have a healthy ego before you can (do the spiritual task of) eradicating ego.  What do you think of that?  (I was going to ask that in response to the pm you sent me a while ago but I got a message that it didn't go through)

And if you see ideal ego as "bad" and authentic self as "good", as in "I am trying to be this and not that", doesn't that just set up a struggle of a different kind? 

[Blimblam]

I will start with your final question and work my way backwards eeks.  I think what people often refer to as the "authentic self," is their ideal ego state.  The self free from the constraints of the critical parent or superego and seen as good by the gaze of big other/ grand spectacle. So, it's really about how they entered into that state, by projecting their crap into the abject then discarding it out of site into some kind of ghetto and creating some type of boundary to prevent there ego from experiencing that pain? In that case its not authentic and it is merely a narcissistic illusion. Not that its good or bad that's just what that is. Everywhere you turn is an advertisement selling you a product that will allow you to see yourself as this ideal ego image, they do this by creating the grand spectacle in which they present ideal ego images such as models and actors and actresses with a product but not just a product  an entire micro-universe where that product gives us access to a space where we can see ourselves as amazing.  What we perhaps take for granted is that the advertisement is assuming the role as the authority upon what is cool or what product or signifiers indicate the ideal ego state.  In that way they control the ego ideal image as it exists in our mind that we compare ourselves to.

As for the spiritual task of eradicating ego, I think you refer to ego death. Using the western definition of ego and to be egoless would mean you are a vegetable or dead. So I think you are referring to the eastern concept of ego which is ahamkara or ego in its verb form so egoing or ego doing. As for what the ego is doing, it is trying to attain the ideal ego state while avoiding pain by attaching to the grand spectacle or in Buddhist terms maya. There is an a book titled The Society of the Spectacle translated by ken Knab written by Guy Dubard that explains the spectacle from a situationist perspective, it is available for free online. The thing is like in the above paragraph the spectacle dictates what is the ideal ego image to society. The do this by presenting and ideal ego image with things that signify the ideological paradigm which that ego exists in. Now if you break the word ideology into its prefix and suffix it is like this this essentially, Ideal-ology or logos which off the top of my head means something like ideal logic or ideal mindset by implying that's just the way things are or are supposed to be. What the ego does is seek out an ideology that will allow it to see itself as on the path to the ideal ego image within that ideology or as the ideal ego image by convinging other people that are that so they can see themselves as that through their eyes.

as for wounds created in relationship can only be healed in relationship. I don't know about only but it seems to be true for me at least. My relationship with my ex ripped me open and allowed me to heal.  Then as I describe in my first post by creating an attachment where the transference is where I identify with the abject of that persons ideological state I feel the wounds they hide from which in turn wound me but allowed me access to those parts within myself through catharsis. That is the process by which has been described as the role of the wounded healer within depth psychology is able to heal themselves and ultimately others. It is also portrayed By Shakespeare, in his play As you Like It, where in the forest of Arden the folk Abjected from the nobles court have formed their own court in the forest of Arden but one character there amoung them writhes in pain and in doing so become enlightened. It conveys that the abjected will create a space to create their model and hierarchy of the thing that they escaped to avoid the catharsis of experiencing the pain of the abject, of disrupting the social order within that new space where they can be accepted and tarnish their image within that social order unless it is in a way that is deemed as acceptable within that social order.  In the same way Kristeva, an atheist, describes the pain of the abject being held by the internal Mother, The ultimate goal of the original form of Christianity was to know the sorrow of Sophia,the fallen mother, Sophia became in later versions of the bible both mother mary and mary magdoline. For the original Christians the only way to salvation was to know the sorrow of Sophia. The orthodoxy later rejected that because if people didn't need the church as the ultimate authority to attain salvation it was a threat to their authoritarian systems of control, remember this was the third century roman empire.  When the empire took over Christianity they crucified all the sects that contained the original forms of the religion from which Christianity arose and burned all their scriptures, only a few survived the nag hamadi library and the dead sea scrolls. The empire took control of the ideal male ego image the father and the son and commited a great genocide through out the empire of any group that worshiped the divine feminine wiping the divine feminine from the original form of christianty and the empire. The original trinity was the father the son and Sophia.

[Blimblam]

just a thought of a further breakdown of the word ideology.   I-deo-logy... so its like I-dios-logos, which reminds me of the Spanish phrase I dios mios which is in English oh my god. Ideology then means something like god of my expectation. Which seems fairly accurate because when something disrupts what someone is expecting from that moment they then say the phrase, "oh my god," which implies the god that governs their expectations has cracked  and simultaneously what has come through the crack in that boundary, the abject, contains god.

[Blimblam]

hey eeks,

I think I see where you're coming from.  The feeling I get is your psychoanalyst is coming from the more Anglophone perspective which tends to be more ego psychology based which is based on the strengthening and reinforcement of the ego to face adversaties.  I like the Anglophone psychoanalytic literature as it tends to get very specific into the egos interactions with objects, such as the object relations school, a good example being James f Masterson.

The thing is I was culturally raised in a middle class republican neighborhood my parents believing in the system and that America is the greatest country in the world blah blah and so on. So basically they are coming from a modernist perspective and are essentially humanists in that they prescribe to rationality and logic as opposed to faith in religion, although paradoxically they unknowingly prescribe to neoliberal ideals which fills the vacume that religion would occupy within their psyche.  To them its just the way things are, which is ultimately a fantasy. So that is the environment in which I was raised and the subculture that sort of allowed me to leave that ideological environment was sort of counter neoliberal cultural environment where I fell into sort of ecologically minded sorts and ultimately spent time alone in the bush where I sort of confronted myself in a vipassana meditation like manor.  

Well the ecologically minded crowd sort of decentralizes the human in the grand scheme of things, at least on an ideological level. That conceptual framework, which I was only able to realize through intensive meditation, sort of places me consciously into a meta narrative outside of the one your psychoanalyst and pretty much everyone I have come into contact with exists in although I used to consciously occupy that one at one point. For these reasons Lacanian psychoanalytic theory appeals to me as it places the context of the ego within a much larger frame than that which exists primarily within the Anglophone academic psychological landscape.

I myself have critiques of all the subcultures I had been involved in the neoliberal, countercultural, catholic, sort of western Buddhist, recovery group and American Anglophone. The critiques I myself have had tend to be covered and addressed in a comical manor by the philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who has a lot of videos on youtube. Although I disagree with a lot of the specific analysis of zizek when he tends to generalize on a topic I agree with what he is actually trying to convey by invoking those , uhm religion as uh media objects I suppoce, to create a sort of portrait of the contemporary western psyche.

I suppose it comes down to if one is concerned with why? or merely how?