Do Do Not Fear Those Who Kill The Body But Cannot Kill The Soul.

Do do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.

Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body.

Gospel of Matthew

I realise that this is a known thing, but trying to find good animal images really brings home the extent to which many non-human animals are commodified to the point where we seldom even think of them as living beings anymore.

I mean, try typing 'lobster' or 'chicken' into a stock images site and see how far down you actually have to scroll before you find a picture of a sentient animal rather than a corpse. I just wonder about the psychological impact of the ubiquitous objectification of animal bodies, and how that effects our ability to empathise with them.

What does it mean to transform?

'Total destruction is the only possible condition for total rebirth' - Barbara Pijan's website

Transformation does not only mean to change the negative parts/habits/traits/qualities of your past. It does not mean to changing the negative things but keeping the positive things like the social connections you used to have, the interests and activities you used to have or the ideologies you lived about. You cannot keep some parts of your past while changing the other parts.

Transformation means to change everything, negative or positive. The positive things do not exist in a vacuum, they are tied to the negative things of your life. So it does not make sense to change the negative things but keep the positive as it is because ultimately you will regress to the negative parts again. In the following diagram, the old you had certain positive and negative qualities, that was your personality. Since it is the old you, you were probably unaware and unconscious of these qualities.

There is the new you (I) which has changed the negative qualities but keeps the positive qualities of the old life. While new you (II) changes both the negative and positive qualities of the old life. The difference in new you (I) and (II) is that the new you (II) is total transformation of your old self, there is little possibility that you will regress to the old negative patterns, behaviours or beliefs.

Changing the positive qualities of the past can be much more difficult than changing the negative ones. The positive qualities are shaped by society, culture, language and of course destiny. So changing the positive qualities which did not pose any harm in the past will be quite difficult, it's like rebuilding yourself from scratch, usually going against the socially dominant behaviours, especially since your families, friends, external identities are pretty much the same as they were before.

What does it mean to change?

I will clarify that by 'change' I do not mean something substantial. I mean to become aware, conscious and intentional about the intentions, motives, thought processes and emotions that drive your behaviour and speech. For example, if you were behaving like a pathological narcissist in your past, the changed version of you will be someone who is aware of their tendencies and patterns, has learned to live by ethics, and learns to use the combination of words that are least violative or behaves in a way that you are aware of your motivations and still try to do it in a decent way.

How to transform completely then?

I don't know. I am figuring out my own personality, but I will give a hint: "To get distant from the things that you used to be close to in the past".

do u think some people are cursed to not having their plans and ambitions solely go their way if they didn't became a 24/7 devotee of god. i feel like im one of those people who can't get anything done even through hardwork unless im begging and praying to god for it (even so, it doesn't turn out to be worth it). i feel so jealous of people who could care less about god, they're always the ones more successful and confident. im going insaneeeeee

I'm not sure. But your thoughts remind me of my own past when I used to think that the most religious people were also most successful. As if they were rewarded for their practice and rituals.

If not God, person believes in some other idea or image. I couldn't bring myself to believe in God, but eventually I started believing in psyche and devote myself to studying the psyche.

Hopefully your confusion is a sign you will find your answer someday. Not all those who wander are lost.

Where there is a will, there may be pride heading for a fall.

Jungiancenter.com

In his early period, Lacan worked within the opposition of empty and full speech.

Empty speech is speech situated among the imaginary axis.

For Lacan, subjectivity is founded upon identification with a false image of unity.

The subject perpetuates this imaginary self by choosing relationships which confer upon him or herself the sense of sameness, relations which are in effect 'narcissistic embraces.'

This is because it is far easier to construct oneself on the basis of another, incorporating his or her tastes or desires, rather than confront the lack that resides in each of us.

And because the subject has constructed him or herself on the basis of another, he or she is unable to enjoin in the assumption of desire.

In other words, in constructing our desires on the basis of another we reinforce our alienation from desire.

As Lacan says: 'For in the work he does to reconstruct it for another, he encounters anew the fundamental alienation that made him construct it like another, and that has always destined it to be taken from him by another.'

This is the meaning of Lacan's enigmatic phrase, 'Man's desire is the desire of the Other,' we desire what the Other desires.

Speech is empty therefore to the extent that it is ironically filled by the Other.

As Lee puts it: 'From the subject's own perspective, then, his speech has been in an important sense "empty": it has been emptied of the subject by being filled with his alienating moi [ego] identity.'

In a clinical setting, a subject whose speech is empty will tend to objectify himself in the following ways:

'I think that I'm the kid of person .. ' or alternatively, 'My teacher thinks that I'm ...'

The art of analysis is to break the analysand's imaginary identifications, 'suspending the subject's certainties until their final mirages have been consumed.'

It is not difficult to see how empty speech corresponds to the objective standpoint.

The objective standpoint seeks to ground itself in sure and certain foundation; it relies on a universally accepted standard of rationality, so that given the same premise we can all arrive at the same conclusion, thereby conferring a collective self-same identity and propagating the illusion of the whole.

As Kierkegaard says: 'The objective way is of the opinion that it has the security that the subjective way does not have' because our thoughts are buttressed by a collective Other.

Theology, Psychoanalysis and Trauma

Marcus Pound