119 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
119 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
### ### ### ### ###
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
########## ### ### ##########
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
|
|
Underground eXperts United
|
|
|
|
Presents...
|
|
|
|
####### ## ## ####### # # ## ## ####### #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ##
|
|
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### ##
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ##
|
|
## ## ####### ####### # # ## ####### ##
|
|
|
|
[ Freudipus ] [ By George Kozma ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Kozma:
|
|
FREUDIPUS
|
|
|
|
It is not up-to-date in a post modern age to speak about the Truth or about
|
|
Essentials, but hopefully it will become clear, why I must try it once
|
|
again. In the last three thousand years the majority of the civilizations
|
|
have relegated to the background of the Jewish component of their origin:
|
|
Christians and Moslems deny their Jewish part - as Freud would have put it:
|
|
they commit patricide, killing their "father."
|
|
Of course, Freud himself writes in an assimilationist mood - denying
|
|
himself his Jewish tradition, when he stresses, (in his essay entitled:
|
|
"Moses") that the origin of Judaism's unitarian God-belief stems from
|
|
Egyptian sources (like Ekhnatons'Aton-religion), so Jews only projected
|
|
this central figure to their "mountain demon," called Yahve.
|
|
|
|
Freud never mentions, that Oedipus - his main hero (whose name, according
|
|
to Graves, meaning Big-Foot, derives really from Oedi-phallos - has had an
|
|
Eastern ancestor (called Kadmos, meaning Eastern), a descendant of the son
|
|
of Noah. Maybe a Jewish family? (Or not quite, if they stem from Noah's
|
|
son, Kana'an and Cham, who cut off his father's testicles.) Interestingly,
|
|
Freud never mentions the tragic fate of this family's members: Kadmos-
|
|
descendant Tantalos, who offers his son, Pelops, to the gods - so that
|
|
Poseidon falls in love with him. The son of Pelops is pursued lovingly by
|
|
Laios, the father of Oedipus. The other sons of Pelops are also sacrificing
|
|
their sons - to give them as a meal to their father... Freud only mentions,
|
|
that he is raised in a foreign environment: unwittingly he acts against the
|
|
taboo of patricide and incest - which are central in the Jewish Decalogue,
|
|
by the way. He never makes it explicit, that his central myth (Oedipus) is
|
|
based on a homo-erotic family saga - one of the main taboos of Jewish-based
|
|
religions (although there are arguments pointing to the Persian-Iranian
|
|
origin of this homophobic asceticism.)
|
|
|
|
Why is it relevant that for most of the time, no thinker - and among them,
|
|
not even Freud, who is one of the few thinkers, who are having an effect on
|
|
our everyday lives - mentions the fact, that the God of the Jews has a name
|
|
- a Name stemming from the verb "to be" namely. (Even lexicons do know,
|
|
that the name Yehove is related to the verb Haya-Hove-Yihye, meaning was -
|
|
is being - will be, and the Bible explicitly states it: "I will be who I
|
|
will be," says the translation. The Bible does not say "God wants you to be
|
|
generous" - it says, that the Make-Be-er tells you to be generous - at
|
|
least, in this transliteration the question of legitimacy is clear: the
|
|
Lord of Being (or Changing, Transforming for that matter) "has"
|
|
jurisdiction about all facets of being (supposing it - or He - exists
|
|
somehow independently from the rest of existence - or Creation - itself.)
|
|
Because "it" is intertwined with everything else, "it" (the text) stresses
|
|
the importance of "signs" (in Hebrew it is "tsioon"), that remind us of
|
|
this central existential Being-Name. We are "echoing" "Him" - in Hebrew it
|
|
rhymes interestingly to the people1s name: "yehoodi"-Jewish. (Hod means
|
|
echo.)
|
|
Many philosopher (from Iustinus to Pseudo-Dyonysios, until Schleiermacher
|
|
and Sartre, from Augistinus, Duns Scotus, Averroes, Avicenna, until Abu
|
|
Bakr, or from Parmenides to Master Eckhardt up until Kierkegaard,
|
|
Nietzsche, Sprengler, Jaspers, Heidegger and today Derrida) posits as a
|
|
central entity the Ens, the Nought, the Being, Existence or the Sign, the
|
|
Symbol, - and many religions also arrive to the concept ot an omni-present
|
|
entity (the Creator) : the Khmers in Cambodia use this name in their
|
|
language (U-Bley-U-Nongbhu-Nongthau), the Indonesians (Zanaharee) too, the
|
|
Greeks' Demiourgos, while the gla-gla signs of South African Ibo-s or the
|
|
Finno-Ugrian Shamanic "echoing" and the Chinese Tao's lake-mirror are also
|
|
"echoes."
|
|
|
|
Freud (in his drive to discredit religion as a neurotic, sick self-
|
|
delusion, which it can be, of course) - together with his century's
|
|
atheistic materialism - wanted to deny the importance of the centrality of
|
|
the concept of "Being" (and also of Transformation), because he wanted to
|
|
arrive to a real transformation in the phantasy-world of each of us. Trying
|
|
to discredit the Judaistic Existence-idol, he operated the same
|
|
(neurotically compulsive) way as many religious believers, who think, that
|
|
if they use (or do not use) certain words, it can - miraculously in a
|
|
wishful way - affect "Reality." Symptomatically, when Freud finds his
|
|
surrogate basic myth - the Oedipus mythologeme - he denies and omits the
|
|
ominous fact about the homo-erotic family story of his hero.
|
|
The main theme - what is a man, what constitutes the human "being" - is
|
|
related to the sexual roles' institution: that is, where we experience
|
|
every day the challenge of positing "who" we are, the identity-question: "I
|
|
Am Who I Am" - which is God's Name.
|
|
The main source of anti-Judaistic tendencies (that have different causes)
|
|
is the unequivocally homophobic and anti-sexual character of the One-God
|
|
religions (and their origin, the Jewish Bible). Freud's omitting
|
|
(censuring) his Jewish tradition and also his partial rendering of the
|
|
Oedipus myth are two facets of the same coin: the instinctual ambivalence
|
|
and deep bisexuality in many humans, or in many of us. It is quite
|
|
interesting that Freud comes to this very same conclusion in spite
|
|
of his own double denial.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
uXu #427 Underground eXperts United 1998 uXu #427
|
|
Call INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION RETRIEVAL GUILD -> telnet iirg.org
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|