Shakti Baffles Freudian 'Oedipus Complex'

Psychology never attracted me enough to think about it seriously and delve deeper into the subject. Whatever little psychology I studied was more of a compulsion than a choice, as a paper on 'educational psychology' constituted a part of the curriculum of a training course I had undertaken a long while ago. It's not that I m not curious to know the thought process of the mind and its behavioral implications but I m rather skeptical of the methods used n conclusions drawn by the psychologists. This, because I feel we hv yet not discovered all the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying the functioning of neurons, which is an important prerequisite for understanding the thought process. So, the psychological theories hv to rely more on imagination & abstraction than anything concrete. Sigmund Freud is a name who is not familiar to psychologists only & his ideas are profusely discussed in larger academic circles, too. Such was the influence of his towering personality that even his adversaries didn't question his scholarship. Besides, I had heard that his name was a taboo in religious circles. Obviously, I was overwhelmed more by his fame (or notoriety) than by his work. Thus, I read about his psychoanalytical model which proposes 3 compartments of the psyche, namely id, ego n superego. Then, I came across the infamous concept of the 'Oedipus Complex', which literally shook the foundations of my traditional mindset. According to this concept, the unconscious of a boy has a desire to possess his mother and kill his father, & that an unresolved son-father competition for the psycho-sexual possession of mother might result in a phallic stage fixation conducive to a boy becoming an aggressive, over-ambitious, vain man. Yuck!!! This was an unpleasant n impalpable thought. The Muslim inside me perceived it as a kind of profanity, a blasphemy, a perversion, a transgression, & a sin. I brushed the thought aside & felt guilty to hv read something like this. Still, the sinister imagination of Freud haunts me & the fear of retribution makes me exclaim: Darn it, I hv read something as silly as this. I'm such a Darn fool! I'll be damned to hell, DARN it!

Oh gosh! I blabber a lot. I'm getting irrelevant and out-of-context here. Okay, lemme bring some sense to this dull discussion. Guys, here I m trying to understand if the current behavior of 'Bail Buddhi' is a case of typical Oedipus Complex. There are many similarities …. like he imitates Sajjan in his behaviour, is quite aggressive, is overambitious and is looking for an opportunity to kill his father. But the only thing that proves he is a deviation from Freudian fancy is his attitude towards SDS. Freud did'nt envisage the boy to be insulting his mother in Shakti style.

Hi..

Originally posted by: carisma2

Hi..

3am here... I will certainly go thru it and comment in the morning.

Chow.

Originally posted by: riyya6

this thread deserve to be in 1st page 😊

Originally posted by: carisma2

Hi..

3am here... I will certainly go thru it and comment in the morning.

Chow.

Originally posted by: ssrbaqri

Psychology never attracted me enough to think about it seriously and delve deeper into the subject. Whatever little psychology I studied was more of a compulsion than a choice, Yet I studied it out of choice - a rather bad one! Lol as a paper on 'educational psychology' constituted a part of the curriculum of a training course I had undertaken a long while ago. It's not that I m not curious to know the thought process of the mind Mee too and its behavioral implications but I m rather skeptical of the methods used n conclusions drawn by the psychologists. Unethical tests... and conclusions - which are hypothetical and never definite. This, because I feel we hv yet not discovered all the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying the functioning of neurons, which is an important prerequisite for understanding the thought process. The unfortunate one is where the happy chemical is missing in the brain and makes one act on compulsive stuborness. So, the psychological theories hv to rely more on imagination & abstraction than anything concrete. Har thala alag, har thale ki chabbi alag. Sigmund Freud is a name who is not familiar to psychologists only & his ideas are profusely discussed in larger academic circles, too. Such was the influence of his towering personality that even his adversaries didn't question his scholarship. Reminds me of someone. Besides,😉 I had heard that his name was a taboo in religious circles. Obviously, I was overwhelmed more by his fame (or notoriety) than by his work. Thus, I read about his psychoanalytical model which proposes 3 compartments of the psyche, namely id, ego n superego. Then, I came across the infamous concept of the 'Oedipus Complex', which literally shook the foundations of my traditional mindset. According to this concept, the unconscious of a boy has a desire to possess his mother and kill his father, Even at a younger age they do state that the child fancies it's opposite sex parent. Though luckily I cannot recall. Lol. & that an unresolved son-father competition for the psycho-sexual possession of mother might result in a phallic stage fixation conducive to a boy becoming an aggressive, over-ambitious, vain man. Yuck!!! This was an unpleasant n impalpable thought. The Muslim inside me perceived it as a kind of profanity, a blasphemy, a perversion, a transgression, & a sin. I brushed the thought aside & felt guilty to hv read something like this. Still, the sinister imagination of Freud haunts me & the fear of retribution makes me exclaim: Darn it, I hv read something as silly as this. I'm such a Darn fool! I'll be damned to hell, DARN it!

Oh gosh! I blabber a lot. I'm getting irrelevant and out-of-context here. Okay, lemme bring some sense to this dull discussion. Guys, here I m trying to understand if the current behavior of 'Bail Buddhi' is a case of typical Oedipus Complex. There are many similarities '. like he imitates Sajjan in his behaviour, is quite aggressive, is overambitious and is looking for an opportunity to kill his father. But the only thing that proves he is a deviation from Freudian fancy is his attitude towards SDS. Freud did'nt envisage the boy to be insulting his mother in Shakti style.

Hope, any MKAPian wud come forward to put more light on the issue.

Originally posted by: carisma2

</div>
<div><font size="3">Added some red bits above too. .</font>

<font size="3">Ahem Ahem.. Clearing her throat. I certainly agree that such information does shake the the foundations for muslims.. or even for any other religious person. Though this theory is more so fitting with the child subconscious mind rather than consious - so luckily no emotions and feelings play part. And as the child is very young he'd not understand. </font>

<font size="3">In the case of Shaktia, I believe it is similar to middle child syndrome.. although he is not the middle child. Usually the eldest and the youngest child to gain more attention hence the middle child feels left out. But in some cases the middle child gets more attention, depending on their personality too. Here as the younger 2 siblings had more attention bestowed upon them Shaktia experiences this. It is a true case and am sure in many families this particular scenario plays out. If Shaktia's insecurities are not dealt with in the right way.. he will only go down hill further and further more, or has he already hit the bottom? He's behaviour with Baba was a attention seeking cry.. but as the Thakurs are uneducated they are not aware of this. </font>

<font size="3">A while ago - Adharsh when he flew of the handle - was going through a similar emotion. But because he was not 'damaged' it was rather temporary for him... but still Adhash is not the same man he used to be aswell. So here we see these two men - both unhappy, because they were both meant to be obliging sons - and feel that we've reached our thirties - and who the hell are we! they are bound to rebel. As Shakti has suffered physical abuse and shame - he's hit a breaking point. </font>

</strong>

<strong><font size="3">Great post - a interesting read! </font>

<font size="3">The reason you felt it was dull - because the it's context didn't buzz you.. and you felt half hearted abt this post. Your heart was not in it - But the presentation was still at it's usual excellence. </font>

Originally posted by: Chitrashi

<font color="#0066FF">First of all Oedipus Complex derives from a Greek Myth regarding a man called - Oedipus, (kinda obvious that one). A child is born to a king and it is prophesied that the child will grow up to kill his father and marry his mother. To prevent this travesty the child is taken to a remote place and abandoned amidst wild animals. Somehow he survives. What follows is a string of coincidences.

He meets a man somewhere who blocks his path and tries to kill him, taking him to be a vagabond, in order to save himself, the young man kills the aggressor. Going further on he comes across a monster and defeats it and thus liberates a kingdom that had lost its king and was being troubled by the monster. The people of the kingdom offer him the crown, but the only way to get the crown is to marry the widowed queen so he does. He has two sons and two daughters and lives happily with his family. When his children are grown, he and his wife discover the truth behind all the incidents. The queen is so grief-stricken that she kills herself, the man blinds himself "for seeing something that he should never have seen (his children) and not seeing that which he should have (his parents)"

That is the gist of the story. Nothing to do with any sort of Freudian complexes. In fact Freud has been proven to be mistaken in most of his analyses by most psychologists now. He is good for playing mental games with others in college but nothing more.

Secondly Shakti is not suffering from the complex at all - even if we go by textbook definition. He has shown no affection or affinity for his mother so far, in fact Krishna shows far more emotional attachment to his mother.

Shakti is simply angry with his mother for silently letting her husband abuse him all his life. Any child who has been recipient of the kind of treatment that Shakti got from his father would react in the same way. He has been verbally and physically abused, humiliated and taunted all his life.

So why look for some convoluted reason for what Shakti is doing, it is as simple as cause and affect. Even a pet dog would turn and bite you if you keep kicking it for too long, Shakti is human after all.

Oh and Greek Mythology predates most known forms and streams of present day religions, let's not apply current morality to something that predates it by at least a 1000 yrs.
</font>