Monday, May 24, 2010

The Eternal Struggle for Survival: An analysis of Freudian Concepts toward life

    Within the field of psychology, Sigmund Freud is known as the father of modern psychology. Sigmund Freud spent his life working toward the betterment of society. He worked to understand that value of human life and how it centers on the ID, Ego and Super-ego. These three entities, Freud referred to as the pleasure principle of life. In Freud's analysis, the ID was a brain developed aspect of a person's desire for pleasure. The ID alone has no conscious; it has only the desire to achieve its goals. It is the Super-ego which is designed with our moral and ethical concepts. Freud conceived that the Ego is the balance between pleasure and control, which in today's term discusses the ideas of the human pleasure principle.

    Within the text, civilization and its Discontents, Sigmund Freud shares with us that humanity has worked toward the desires of pleasure throughout its existence, yet falls short due to higher expectations that we are ever able to achieve. That as people, we continue to keep putting forth the effort necessary to find happiness, yet this happiness is fleeting. Once we achieve a desire, we are left empty, and need to once again find a way to fulfill desires. (43-53)

    Sigmund Freud continues to posit the idea's that humans have a balance within society, even if they are not aware of it. (95) The philosopher Schiller shared with the world that "hunger and love make the world go round". Understanding the effects of love and hunger, Freud began to explain the libido. This entity which is part of each person aligns with the ego to bring about humanities desires. The libido is a human entity which resolves to achieve its maximum pleasure, and in doing so, can create negative cruelty for the individual and or others surrounding that individual. (95)

    An idea which manifested with the works of Freud and has continued forward into today's society is that of directing aggression toward others as an "instinct of aggression". This aggression principle allows for the flow of energy outwards, yet even with this aggression, there is a flow of energy which is destructive internally as well. This instinct creates a conflict of destruction within ourselves, and offers an inward and outward eroticism (96-99). The pleasure principle forces an individual to operate within their own spectrum (43). "Those who love fairytales do not like it when people speak of the innate tendencies in mankind toward aggressions, destruction and in addition, cruelty". (99)

    Understanding the concept of this struggle allows for a person to realize that they are continually in an internal struggle for balance. The pleasure principle finds itself seeking the ability of the ego to enhance an individual's desires. An internal conflict occurs when the super-ego seeks to understand the purpose of the behavior and in turn arrives at a null response, causing guilt or pain, or what we as learned people may call internal conflict. (104-105)

    In response to this internal conflict that is created, Freud shares with humanity that human beings have an ability to internalize their internal conflict, and to garrison it within their own minds and to choose over the chaos. Without this safety net, humans may be able to apply evil in any manner that they desire and feel no conscience in doing so. (105 – 106)

    A lasting impression of conflict results in the idea's that guilt is a predominant cursor toward our existence (120). There is an eternal struggle between Eros and the death instinct. We as people are focused as design for survival, yet our behaviors are for dominance toward our desires (120-124). This in a nutshell is the concept in which Freud explained in order to maintain balance between the Id and the Super-ego. Freud maintained that there is a price for the advancement of civilization, and that this price is to forego the pleasure of happiness and to arrive at the heightened sense of guilt (123). Studying the pleasure principle may allow for society to understand the effects that progress creates, and allow for a calmer more friendly environment so that world destruction can subside (144).


Freud, S. (2010). Civilization and its Discontents. Connecticut: Martino Publishing.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The Value of Human Rights is Cultural

The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote, in reference to the ESPN E60 Documentary
E60 – Female athletes in South Africa -

The American population has a complex understanding of human rights. Through time, the western culture has defined the necessary standard for its belief in the morals of humanity. There is a very different perspective of human rights within countries that are not held to the western cultural beliefs. Human rights are often present within their social condition, rather than by a law for which the population does not value. The importance of understanding human rights within a culture is shown by the concept of rape. Within the United States, rape is seen as a monstrous act which devalues a human being and is punishable by time in jail. Rape in countries that are not governed by the same moral concepts may be seen as part of the culture, and used for control and or the self pleasure of the rapist. Human rights have a place within all cultures, yet the actual value of what is a human right is strongly determined by beliefs.

Human rights is a concept for which people want to demand immediate change, yet history takes time to unravel and regroup within the concept which s best for all. The tribal peoples were involved in a concept of change, in which the religious reformation became quite apparent. Over time, the conversion of the tribal peoples from their native religion to forms of Christianity became permanent. The more the local white population and the tribal populations intermixed, the closer the two groups came to believing in the same moral ideals. It is these moral ideals that have been entrenched into a culture which does not align with the human rights values that the American culture believes in.

E-mail me for the rest of the article:

Friday, May 14, 2010

Charter Schools get free pass based on beliefs

People are allowed to have beliefs. There is nothing wrong with believing in a concept. The problem between people and politicians is that the politicians and meant to carry out what is best for the people.

The power to create an education system which is said to be better than any other can only be validated by research and testing. At this point, charter schools have had an opportunity to shine, and they do not make the cut.

Jeb Bush has alot of beliefs and has allowed for other politicians to buy into his concepts. Perhaps it is time to go back to the drawing board and realize that charter schools are public schools with a concept.

The Florida Legislature and the Federal Government need to restructure education that it is designed for all. The class size amendment is more than needed.

The State of Florida needs to allow this for all courses, and quite frankly if I were the parent of a child in a charter school, I would mandate that they follow this law or I will take my child to my local public school. Fewer Students means more opportunities for students.

Finally, I would have assumed that Charter Schools would have been forced to have smaller class sizes to validate their success. This may be a reason they are in the same boat as public education.

Additional Reading:

When will the Politicians learn?

The concept of old fashioned thinking does not create a positive world for the people. Many of the people running for office, or who remain in office uphold very tight old beliefs and are not willing to bend at all.

It may be best for our society if we were able to find people that have the proper skills necessary to run our State and not just the super rich that the parties are willing to put in front of a camera.

The Right Wing Republicans remain the only group of people who cannot fathom how a person would choose to be gay. Eh, I will let biology have a hand in that fight. What about the concept that a loving household is the best place for a child to grow. So option 1 is that a child has no parents and lives in an orphanage. Option 2 is that the child grows up in a divorced home or anger and violence. Option XXXXXX.

Research shows that a child growing up in a nurturing home is the best location, regardless of if it is m/f, m/m or f/f
Grow up Florida, Grow up America - we are meant to be a group of people who respect each other. It starts with the Politicians...and until they start to do right...the rest will not.,0,3135137.column

Thursday, May 6, 2010

In Response to the Concept of Political Obstructionism

The fact that a professor has created a video series for us to watching allows me to believe that he does not follow the status quo of educators. In fact, he is melding away from it and is creating a virtual classroom lecture, within an online world.

We all focus on the larger picture of a problem saturated world, and come to terms believing that the problems are attached to us. The status quo is a hindering of sorts, and does not allow the narrative of a future to move forward. I think that the concept of political obstructionism is a great metaphor for us to consider.

Along the same parallel, in considering health care, perhaps reviewing it from another perspective can help to systemically view why political obstructionism is important. In order to move toward a fair and balanced concept, the status quo needs to change slightly, with a considerable consideration made toward just a slight change. This was not a slight change.

Within the analysis of this topic, I recently wrote a paper offering a third alternative which moves toward a more socialized model.

Consider: America has approximately 300 Million people. Approximately 10% of the population is elderly and does not work. 10% of the population is under the working age, and another 10% is unemployed. This leaves 70% of the American population producing. Add to this thought, if each paying American was to offer $25 per paycheck per month, then we would have +/-220million (said to be working # within the country)x $25 per month being paid into a fund. Total end of month value of this fund is 5.5billion. Over the course of a year that is a lot of monies.
Why then are we not offering a solution similar to this one, for the American people? With minimal contribution, we would all be able to afford health coverage.

The argument that we heard publicly was between people who wanted to change a system, versus others who wanted the status quo. The problem was that the other side of the argument is always scary. Political obstructionism allows for the status quo to change, yet the change needs to be very slight, unless the people are in a traumatic situation and are not thinking clearly. 911 bombings was an example of how to change the status quo through terror. Health Care has not terror attached, and therefore we can't force through a change. The health care change is slight..and will move very slowly to see more change until the status quo arrives again.

The debate raged on in congress for valid cause. There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, yet this issue held more than party affiliation. It was also old v young, rich v poor and more important, powerful v weak. Dr. Campbell offers us a great view of political obstructionism, and we, as the up and coming professors have a chance to be part of the change, or to continue the status quo

Thanks for listening…