Philosophy and Psychoanalysis

Quando, às três da tarde da sexta-feira, Jesus suspira e entrega seu espírito a Deus, passamos a nos perguntar “o que fizemos?”. Para um distraído, deve ser nada além de uma culpa a mais para a coleção. Nós, freudianos, porém, compreendemos tal pergunta como a origem da civilização.

É uma questão de geolocalização, se é que me entende.

Onde estamos, exatamente, depois de termos assassinado o Criador? Se estivermos entre os que fazem a si mesmos aquela pergunta, tal qual no mito do parricídio, muito que bem. Algo assim tem potencial de nos deschucralizar. Mas se estivermos para além da fronteira da responsabilidade, estamos perdidos.

É neste último lugar que o indivíduo vibra com um Jesus que “senta o chicote” nos ladrões — sem se dar conta de que ele mesmo é o ladrão mencionado nas Escrituras. Vibra com o ultraje aos líderes fariseus, sem se dar conta de que o Mestre o ultraja no instante da leitura.

Escrevi sobre esse fenômeno, em um capítulo denominado “narcisismo das pequenas diferenças” (é um conceito psicanalítico). Em resumo, o ódio é ainda mais talentoso que o amor quando o assunto é unir seres humanos, formar exércitos, igrejas, e torcidas organizadas.

Quem abre uma bíblia impressa nos anos setenta, oitenta — traduzida por João Ferreira de Almeida, miolo rosa, cortado por um índice tátil — encontra a Palestina na seção de mapas.

Quer dizer. Até “ontem”, ninguém tinha qualquer dúvida quanto ao Jesus que matamos ser palestino. O que nos fez mudar de lado, além do dinheiro?

A filosofia de René Girard coincide com a prática cristã, quando da formação de uma religião a partir da violência, tanto quanto essa mesma violência gera a humanidade civilizada para os freudianos. Mas esse autor provoca particularmente quando o morto é Jesus. Desde que matamos um inocente, a roda da violência gira no vazio.

Se a Páscoa renova nos cristãos a esperança da ressurreição, que pudesse também renovar em todos nós alguma garantia de que, pelo menos uma vez por ano, perguntamos “o que fizemos?”.

Imagem da paixão

A fotografia deste artigo, registrada por Mohammed Salem da agência Reuters e divulgada pela World Press Photo, foi a vencedora do prêmio World Press Photo do Ano. A imagem retrata Inas Abu Maamar, palestina de 36 anos, em um momento de dor profunda ao abraçar o corpo de sua sobrinha Saly, de apenas 5 anos, que perdeu a vida em um bombardeio israelense. A cena ocorreu no hospital Nasser, localizado em Khan Younis, no sul da Faixa de Gaza, em 17 de outubro de 2023.

Ainda que tenha visto o filme Pantaleão e as visitadoras (divertido e indicado!), pouco conheço dos romances de Mario Vargas Llosa, Nobel da literatura — escritor peruano que despediu-se neste dia 13.

Gostava dele! Me recomendaram fortemente uma vez A casa verde — curiosamente um professor americano. Porém, este livro da foto, repleto de ensaios, reflexões e provocações, que ganhei em 2013, li e me foi bem marcante.

Um papo-cabeça aqui: como geralmente em cursos de comunicação a gente estuda Escola de Frankfurt, aprende-se que a culpa, por assim dizer, do esvaziamento poético visto nas artes ao longo da história, da decadência estética do que se entende por belo, bem como o fim da chamada "alta cultura", seria resultado da produção em série, da busca pelo lucro em escala, da indústria cultural: em suma uma consequência do capitalismo.

Pra minha supresa, este livro me revelou um ponto de vista diferente: a questão é política, que envolve a herança de um revanchismo contra o gosto da aristocracia (ou das altas classes) desde as revoluções.

TRata-se de um repúdio crescente à sociedade tradicional, após as grandes guerras mundiais, e, na sua essência, sobretudo: de fundo religioso — afinal, na origem de todas as civilizações, em todos os tempos, justamente dos ritos religiosos advieram e se desenvolveram as manifestações artísticas.

Parte-se da busca pelo sublime, das experiências místicas, que posteriormente formaram as bases do que entendemos por culturas. Um elo que virou apenas um eco na vida ocidental contemporânea, isto quando não totalmente banido, execrado, num mundo que, ao seu ver, culturalmente, caminha rumo ao nada.

Ou, como já observamos agora, para o conteúdo gerado por inteligência artificial.

In Transactional Analysis (TA), the nagging feeling of suspicion, that "something's not right," is termed the "Little Professor" ego state. A contemporary translation might be "Little Professor." This version aligns with Eric Berne's aim to make TA accessible to children. When the Little Professor is brimming with cathexis, with psychic energy, we become aware of something unspoken. Faced with this psychic fact, we might say, "I think you need a hug." And the other replies, "Wow, I've been waiting for that for days."

Since we are dealing with the human mind, countless elements contribute to any analysis. I want to make it clear that the mere existence of this subjective reading device, this ego state, does not guarantee that the assessment of the circumstances is accurate, or even real.

I've often repeated an arrogant phrase from a political journalist: "Offering opinions is fine, but being right is even better." When the minimal scruple of the human condition exists and is heeded, even occasionally, the capacity, let's say, for prescience, is enriched.  There's a price to pay for that.

"Discomfort is a frequent visitor," explains my TA supervisor, Maku de Almeida. As the quality of our observations improves and we discover that the Little Professor was right from the start, it's painful to admit that people we love so dearly still live miserably.

Natalia Pasternak was a redhead who talked about coronavirus, as I recall from the pandemic. During the years she was on air, she lacked the foresight to acquire a proper camera and microphone. She was a journalistic source molded into a television personality, which is generally the rule for extended relationships with TV (Drauzio Varella, the benevolent doctor; Caco Barcellos, the infallible journalist; Gil do Vigor, the eccentric ex-BBB-economist).

I don't think that lady realized she was being used in the role of shrewish teacher (which she seems to play very well). She was useful as long as she granted immaculate seals of "science" to anything opposed to Bolsonaro (although any help against that president's ignorance was very welcome, anyway).

It doesn't take an infectious disease genius to state that dewormers aren't very effective against viruses. Moreover, it wasn't an intellectual or technical discussion, but the confrontation of a simultaneously biological and psychic health crisis. The journalistic framings, understandably, because we were all caught off guard, were almost always a separate disease.

Anyway, I challenge anyone to present me with a convert to Natalia's ideas (it's a figure of speech, don't waste your time). Is there anyone who, through the oracle (hm) of science (hm, 2) who spoke on Jornal Nacional, stopped taking chloroquine, or had the dignity to stop defecating early treatment through their mouth?

When science is placed in the role of god, whose perfection is an inseparable attribute, it merely changes the language of a religious experience, and, fatally, becomes a religion and denies itself. Science is expected to be able to refine Newton's Laws into the Theory of Relativity (in this case of physics, it is a substantial change).

Faced with the impossibility of criticizing the "science" that forced us into masks and social distancing (I don't dare to argue whether it was right or wrong), without doubting it, liberation through rationality is reduced to yet another sect.

I take pride in having been publicly humiliated when I challenged the shrewish "science" of the pandemic. I suffered, you can laugh with me, an involuntary transfiguration. I appeared before my listeners with a square mustache and a Hugo Boss uniform. But that never happened, not in the pandemic, not before, nor will it ever happen, in the company of true people of reason. In the company of these people, I am encouraged to doubt my shadow (which has been acting a bit strange lately, by the way).

Natalia overstepped when she preached from her pulpit (her latest book) that psychoanalysis is not science. Not that it is, anyway. And even less that psychoanalysis cares about that. Except in very specific programs such as those found at the University of São Paulo (USP), State University of Campinas (Unicamp), and Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR), it's hard to imagine the "scientific" community, a Natalia of life, bothering to review their own existence while applying psychoanalysis to a research object (because this is an individual cost in research in the philosophy of psychoanalysis).

Brazil has internationally observed research in psychoanalysis. The country shares some fundamentals with the French. It has been a hundred years since the English tradition denies psychoanalysis the status of science. This tradition is so disgruntled that there seems to be no intention of stopping research – see the irony – scientifically into what is scientific about psychoanalysis. Meanwhile, the German tradition is to correct what it considers to be insufficiencies in psychoanalysis. But so. Either it didn't happen or there is no record of shrewish behavior.

What can be written against Natalia's ravenous prejudice is in the latest publication by the full professor of Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology at USP, Christian Dunker. It's the latest gossip from the coronavirus-scientific-world. This group is to science what the Lava Jato coverage is to journalism.

Natalia Pasternak is the Mara Maravilha of psychoanalysis.

Does Freud explain? Or does even Freud not explain? The fact is that the Viennese psychoanalyst is no longer alive to provide the explanations we might desire. Recently, reading one of his books, I encountered a witty footnote, something like this: “Couples can bond through love and violence. We must be prepared for this, because not all of us will be like that peasant woman who complains that her husband no longer loves her because he hasn't beaten her in two weeks”. Freudian literature is far from tedious.

The author is widely renowned, from psychoanalytic communities to the scientific academy, and in individual reading projects. To some, a sincere and generous genius, to others, a "madman". For anyone with any decent exposure to psychoanalysis, it is understood, regarding the previous point, that it doesn't really matter. For every great light, there exists a correspondingly great darkness. And, let's agree, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. "And it's all good", psychoanalyst Áurea Moneo (pictured below) would say with a smile. She is a professor of psychoanalysts in training, and a supervisor for practicing analysts.

Interview with Áurea

Vinícius Sgarbe: Dear Áurea, I think there's tremendous power in psychoanalysis, as well as in anything else firmly believed in. Sometimes, I find quotes attributed to Freud online that he certainly never said or wrote. But it hardly affects me because I'm not consumed by jealousy. I think at this point, any help is welcome. Besides, Freud doesn't pay me to be his brand police—laughs. Tell me, my friend, how's your psychoanalysis going?

Áurea Moneo: Dear Vinicius, I believe that after so much time, the fact that he is still so remembered, with various quotes attributed to him, most of them typical of our contemporary era, is a clear sign of his brilliance. Perhaps one of the few icons who deserves such reverence, both from those who hate him because they don't allow themselves to admire him, and from those who genuinely admire him. He remains, more alive than ever, in our memory. And, in these times of narrative construction, he continues to fuel the desires of the unconscious, validating the words of anonymous authors.

Training of the Psychoanalyst

Training of the Psychoanalyst To become a psychoanalyst, one doesn't need much more than an irremediable curiosity about people. That is, what drives training is the investigation of one's own life, where everything begins, and then of the scenarios around us, which are often, if not always, full of "others".

Broadly speaking, Freud is a starting point, a cartography for exploring wisdom and science. Is Freud the last word? Obviously not. Are other authors welcome? It depends on the author—laughs—but they are appreciated, of course.

Aula Magna

Public Lecture This Thursday (11th) and next Thursday (18th), at 7:30 pm, Illumen, a center for training in clinical psychoanalysis, is promoting public lectures on psychoanalytic training. The first is titled "Self-Knowledge: Visions of Psychoanalysis", presented by Professor Anamaria Racy. On the 18th, Áurea Moneo will speak on "Emotions and Illness." Participants must register at the link below. It will be online and free. To learn more about Illumen, visit the website.

Register now

I present some considerations to the discussion on transdisciplinarity. These are grounded in the development of two research projects carried out in different fields, namely philosophy and communication. The topic has the potential to be quite interesting.

Simply put, transdisciplinarity occurs when distinct fields of science collaborate mutually. But they don't merely influence or mention each other; they work together and are modified in the process. For example, the artist Ana Bellenzier researched art (one field) within geography (another field). Let's return to my impressions.

My first research project examines the reception of political communication within the philosophy of psychoanalysis. This accumulation of words might make it sound more complex than it is: I am conducting a psychoanalysis of Brazil's digital democracy (the conclusions are concerning).

Contemporary philosophy has allowed itself to pay attention to political life, and I would note that this is done through notably pragmatic approaches. The electoral use of religion in Brazil and the Covid-19 pandemic are thematic examples. It is an opportunity to analyze the present time.

In this context, psychoanalyzing the relationship between the Brazilian voter and politics is welcome in philosophy. This is partly because there are authors common to philosophy, politics, and communication, such as Flusser and Habermas. This fluidity constitutes a bridge to communication.

The conversation between the scientific fields of philosophy and communication has proven rich and promising. They are connected fields, although their historical constitutions are separated by about two thousand years.

My second research project focuses on the communication of voters critical of the Supreme Federal Court and its ministers. Although communication research is a consequence of philosophy, political science, etc., it is now established as its own field.

This is where we ask ourselves: what is communicative about this communication research? What differentiates it from research in sociology or psychology? The answers to these questions can make communication and philosophy appear quite similar. Why?

The most striking characteristic of the field of communication is that it is a kind of intermediate space, an open forum, where all contributions about communication are welcome (except the opinions of influencers—laughter). And philosophy feels very comfortable in such spaces.

A "moralist" can send shivers down one's spine. The term is demoralized for some of us. However, someone who is a moralist by profession, a moral philosopher, is not necessarily a fanatical hypocrite. Note: for one line of research, "moral" and "ethics" are synonyms. That's something.

In his second book, Dr. Gustavo França discusses the constitution of morality, debating how much of this constitution is the result of ruptures or continuities. In this episode of Sgarbe News of the Day, the conversation is engaging.

For França, "all societies have had morality. Moreover, one thing people have never needed was philosophers to teach them morality. Even I never needed that. My morality doesn't come from Aristotle, nor from Kant, it comes from my mother, my grandmother".

In a recent article, Jürgen Habermas writes "Reflections and Hypotheses on the Further Structural Transformation of the Political Public Sphere". He is the author of a philosophy that informs various fields of research. At 93, he adds platformization to his previous considerations.

Fellow research group member, Dr. Nilton Kleina, jokes that, given his advanced age and continued writing, "this is precarity"—laughter. Be that as it may, the text clearly and categorically argues that platforms must be held responsible for the content published on them. The discussion offers much to unpack, and we are outlining the first stitches.

Habermas (2022) defines "traditional media" and "new media", essentially, with the former being responsible for content and having a certain commitment to cognition and aesthetics, and the latter being marked by the internet, the fragmentation of the public stage, and platformization.

In the scenario he analyzes, traditional media has been anticipating fewer and fewer newspaper and magazine readers since the advent of television. That is, it is not exactly news that print media has been shrinking every year. Still, television is traditional media.

The internet and platforms grant users the possibility of publishing their own content—ideally without prior censorship and with equal access. This promise already faces practical adversities—due to widely known facts. Now, something may bother us even more.

Under philosophical observation at least since 1962 (the year of publication of "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere"), Habermas now turns to the storming of the Capitol. He argues that, while the apparent motives are unacceptable, the event is the product of decades of dissatisfaction among the American people with politics. Distrust of politicians and the press also occurs in Germany, and there are similar effects throughout Europe.

Mediation is necessary

By analogy, the crisis in journalism ( declining readership, less advertising, poor reputation) can be seen as a revolt, in response to the words we exaggerated, the acts we failed to denounce, and the cruel omissions we made in the name of good.

The public and advertisers have distanced themselves from our newsrooms, but you know this too. Distant enough to understand that they don't need us, or that they want revenge on us, like an immaterial sovereign we ceased to serve. They may, however, want us without needing us. In any case, for the broadcast audience, journalists and journalism are not blameless.

It is urgent for us to make it clear that politicians and journalism may share the voters' discontent, but the State funds politics, while journalism is subject to, at the very least, unfair market demands.

We argue that journalism has been and is ready for editorial productions (news, investigations, debates, opinion pieces, documentaries, etc.) with fundamental values of technique and human development. It is necessary to differentiate: journalism is journalism, a political party is a political party.

The behavior of traditional media companies in the face of this scenario lacks mediation. They could opt for a crusade against the platforms, which would bring temporary results, or find, together with the platforms, a way to untie the knot. And to employ journalists.

‍

Narcissism is, to offer a simplified definition, the bare-bones, object-dependent provision. Further, for psychoanalysis, the narcissist makes of themselves their own object. When this is taken to its ultimate consequences, the individual can even become ill (both the individual and the system).

In a post-truth, postmodern world, there is a certain social appreciation for that which is capable of loving itself. Hollywood and Instagram preach "never give up on your dreams" (seriously, sometimes, give up). But that's okay.

Back in Vienna, a century ago, Freud left us with the dubious legacy of linking narcissism and homosexuality. Yikes. Then things get really messed up, as the writer Luca Rischbieter warns us whenever he can.

You might counter-argue that "for Viennese society at the beginning of the 20th century, homosexuality was considered an illness, so Freud cannot be judged by today's standards". Well. That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

If Freud's work is taken too literally, the reader runs the risk of missing the best of the theory. But how so? Hypothetically, let's put it this way so as not to frighten anyone, the individual has a submerged world within themselves, which not even they can access, the unconscious.

It turns out, however, that a significant portion, if not all, of an individual's decisions are made in the unconscious. Occasionally, but not infrequently, the one who has established themselves as their own object may have difficulty contributing to the community.

Not to mention that, crystal clear, a life that maintains infatuation, let's call it that, infatuation, with oneself to the point of being unable to recognize the other, also ends in divorces, misery, suicides.

The unconscious, the Id, those visceral experiences, everything that has been formed over the years, and very well hidden, requires a certain effort to be known. One of the techniques of psychoanalysis is to curse your mother (laughs). The narcissist of myth, the one who admires themselves, could then be "provoked" by the connection Freud makes between the "I deserve everything, and I am above everything" crowd with "go find a dick?".

Psychoanalysis doesn't demand a chair in the university. This doesn't mean it isn't a subject of research. Not surprisingly, Brazilian philosophy of psychoanalysis has an audience in many parts of the world. Right now, for example, at a seminar on public theology at the University of Edinburgh.

But what does public theology have to do with psychoanalysis? Well, that's a story that can be told in many ways. First, it would be necessary to define what public theology is, or even democratic theology. Basically, we have to look at the political use of religion.

Without unnecessary scruples, let's be direct. The Brazilian case that is highlighted in Scotland goes through the evangelical uprising in defense of Bolsonaro. We understand that religion, far from being replaced by a primacy of reason, as Freud wanted, is an inextinguishable part of life.

It so happens that two, let's say, conflicting things have their origins around the same time in the post-World War I era. One is the psychedelic version of Protestant Christianity, whose followers believe the world will end after a "rapture". And the other is psychoanalysis.

These two worldviews are proposed solutions to the problem of death. Both are motivated by the same thing, the fear of death, although they arrive at totally different, and, let's repeat, conflicting conclusions.

For an evangelical of that ilk, it is reasonable to tell a child that masturbation is a sin, while Freud and psychoanalysis are cursed. And, let us confess our sins, brothers and sisters, a psychoanalyst will have difficulty taking an evangelical seriously. Reciprocal prejudice.

But despite this, in 2023, it's easy to give a vote of confidence to the group that is less wrong.

Public theology is the topic of an international seminar at the University of Edinburgh, led by Dr. Ulrich Schmiedel. The Brazilian case of using religion for political purposes is being addressed by researchers Dr. Magali Cunha and Dr. Rudolf von Sinner. I highlight a statement by Dr. Cunha that combats prejudice against Protestants. Considered by some segments as the primary agents of contamination between state and religion in Brazil, historical records show that such contamination existed before evangelical churches.

Dr. Fatima Tofigui, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Religions of Qom, Iran, discusses the difference between "prophetic influence" and caliphate. For the former, the relationship with the invisible world is paramount, while for the latter, although based on prophetic words, the result of the experience is material power.

The central debate of Dr. Fatima's presentation is the legitimization of political authority based on prophetic words. One of the authors she cites, Mohammed Iqbal, defends Islam as a "religious experience" similar to others outside of Islam. Its meaning, therefore, would be restricted to an individual experience. This point would make it more difficult to maintain a divinely inspired democracy.

In the 1960s, authors wrote about theology and the Palestinian Cause, which has since ceased.

Definition of Public Theology

My contribution to the seminar is as follows. Prompted by Dr. Schmiedel, I attempted a definition of what "public theology" could be. I translate it into Portuguese below.

Public theology can be described as the amalgamation of the concepts of State, democracy, and spirituality. Nevertheless, it is crucial to inquire about the aspects that differentiate public theology from a theocratic state. In countries where religion holds a dominant position in the government, the term "public theology" may not be applicable as the prevailing theology is intrinsically associated with a specific religion. Hence, such theology cannot be categorized as public. Consequently, public theology belongs simultaneously to the State and the various spiritual experiences. Moreover, public theology is intimately connected to collective sentiment, which concerns the establishment of communities and the regulations that govern these communities (reviewed by Karine Porto Lopes Ono).

Public theology can be described as the fusion of the concepts of state, democracy, and spirituality. However, it is crucial to inquire about the aspects that differentiate public theology from a theocratic state, for example. In countries where religion holds a dominant position in the government, the term "public theology" may not be applicable, as the prevailing theology is intrinsically linked to a specific religion. Therefore, such theology cannot be categorized as public. Consequently, public theology belongs simultaneously to the State and to diverse spiritual experiences. Furthermore, public theology is intimately connected to collective sentiment, which concerns the establishment of communities and the regulations that govern these communities.

Federal University of Paraná

In 2017, Professors Dr. Kelly Prudencio and Dr. Carla Rizzoto organized the seminar "Mobilization of Public Opinion" at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR). In it, Recognition Theory and its derivations led to essential discussions in communication research that preceded the political phenomena of 2018. It was a kind of last gasp of rationality before the breakdown that often centered on religion.

What is Jair Bolsonaro's religion, for example? It is known that the former president took a side, and emphasized it through the performance of the former first lady, Michelle.

In Time

Whose responsibility is it to contain violence against women if not men's? Whose responsibility is it to combat racism if not white people's? Whose responsibility is it to combat fascism if not the fanatics'? And how can we persuade men, white people, and fanatics if not by talking to them? This is, for me, the dilemma of my century.

I consider the following verses by Vinicius de Moraes appropriate for this article.

Tell her I am deeply saddened, but I cannot go to meet her tonight.
Tell her there are millions of bodies to bury
Many cities to rebuild, much poverty in the world.
Tell her there is a child crying somewhere in the world
And the women are going mad, and legions of them are weeping
Longing for their men; tell her there is a void
In the eyes of the outcasts, and their thinness is extreme; tell her
That shame, dishonor, suicide haunt homes, and life must be regained.
Make her see that I must be alert, facing all paths
Ready to help, to love, to lie, to die if necessary.

A few days ago, I heard from a Bolsonaro supporter: "I'm starting to believe that the Bolsonaro supporter is worse than the PT supporter." To which I replied, "certainly the PT supporter is worse".

The infodemic is an unfortunate adjunct to Covid-19. For the World Health Organization (WHO), ignorance regarding the use of vaccines can mean life or death.

But this issue can be further stressed, because browsing the internet is like licking the floor of a purulent ICU.

Our rotten souls become a concern of social psychology, by which some of us can be classified as deceased. And who is vulnerable?

Compared to Instagram, Xvideos is naive. I am in the midst of an embarrassing read of the book "The Transparency Society", by the philosopher Byung-Chul Han. Initially, I thought that, based on the title, it would lead me to champion the causes of organized civil society regarding the transparency of public spending, or something along those lines. But, no.

The author steers clear of directly discussing politics, and makes me reflect on how shallow the images I access on digital networks are.

Let us remember that this is a philosophical discussion. If everyone is transparent, then everyone is equal in being transparent. Exhibition is productification, the commodity is a human being.

Cleaning up the mess of the bubbles

When "The Social Dilemma" documentary was recommended to me, I felt incredibly lazy. Everything I "have" to watch, that I "can't miss", is often a millennial generation hyperbole for anything. Whatever.

I wonder about the naiveté of those who didn't see Google begin to design social bubbles when it started presenting different results for the same search terms. A less cumbersome form of what would become the Facebook algorithm – a kind of special American sauce that nobody knows the recipe for.

Without the insolence of a moral recommendation, but in a movement for the return of the sublime, I think we would be happier in 2021 without encountering women trying cookie tea on the internet.

In the first therapy session I ever attended, with psychologist and logotherapy professor Guilherme Falcão, I came to believe that "an approximation to science can be very dangerous, while a deep dive into it is not". I took this advice as truth.

I make this "opening" to argue that Freud and his unilateral, Viennese, Eurocentric, and century-old vision can sound strange when viewed from afar. Deep down, I think psychoanalysis serves some types of women and men just as pornography and conspiracy theories serve others.

I find in Freudian literature a contour in words for things I had already discovered through my own experience. There's nothing new, "it doesn't surprise us at all", as he likes to write. But it is, indeed, a relief in a world that insists on simplification.

Speaking languages, clarity in discourse, journalistic leads, even startup pitches, all of these serve social communication, but not necessarily communication itself. I argue that for certain aspects of life, especially those not published, a certain amount of repertoire is welcome.

Freud's bitterness in "Civilization and Its Discontents", for example, would it be capable of generating discontent in the reader? Of course not. Believing that this type of reading "gives" bad ideas is a bad idea. The fact is that it is a plural, rich library, capable of undoing any eventual excesses.

Last week, a close friend told me not to give so much importance to what is defended not only in science, but in rationalization as a whole. And it makes sense, because life can be a little more gelatinous, in the excellent sense of soft, sweet, colorful.

A woman I knew died because she couldn't control her nerves. On that morbid night, she argued until she lost her breath, recorded the fight with her cell phone, went to the hospital in an ambulance, and her heart stopped. Her name became an epitaph. For a lifetime, she couldn't cure herself of her neurosis.

I feel a sad pity when I remember her, and the role she occupies in this story. To be remembered, imagine, for the deadly degree of obstinacy, for taking to the ultimate consequences the pertinacity of conforming the world outside of her to the world within her. She failed miserably.

Politics reminds me of this behavior, in a good way and in a bad way. Good when we want better individual standards to be expanded to our families, and communities. Very bad when our world is a mess and we want to validate it at any cost.

The elections will not bring us the peace we seek so tirelessly (even though we apparently act in the opposite direction most of the time). Lula and Bolsonaro are, let's say, spokespersons for messages we hold onto so we have something to say, to defend, to be indignant about. And then what?

Our political vortex would need to stop being a vortex, to become fresh air that relieves our life in community. Cultural life, in which politics resides, exists to protect us from the forces of nature, and to constrain the lazy.

As for those of us who work, there would be little that would interest us in the lives of others beyond the choice of psychic, marital characters, or variations. However, we make ourselves hostages to our violence, and we have no solution for the phenomenon. We are like a controversial God.

This small animal that lives inside each of us, this primitive memory wants to bite, tear, kill, wants to argue to the death. Our peace cannot depend on politics, nor on medicine, or philosophy. Peace, I think, is very similar to faith.

I accepted Dr. Ana Babrilla's challenge to discuss these two subjects: journalism and psychiatry. Political communication in Latin America has been leaning towards this intersection, for example, the book that Chilean journalist Dr. Felipe Vergara Maldonado is writing with a European psychologist friend.

During the "1st Advanced Seminar on Political Communication" at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), I asked Maldonado which approach to psychotherapy was included in his research. He didn't know how to answer, which is an answer.

From psychoanalysis, which is unfathomable (so profound), to the simplification of behavioral theories, it is difficult to connect American lead-style journalism to psychic issues. It's not impossible. But it's difficult because the vastness invites hasty conclusions, such as giving some public figure the diagnosis of a mentally weak president.

Aren't the methodologies inherited from the social sciences, such as content and discourse analysis, sufficient to explain communicative phenomena? Yes and no. If it were exclusively yes, this article would be pointless.

Yes, because with such resources one can describe a multitude of emotions and feelings. No, because communication research may lack even deeper aspects, capable of making the contours of the objects clearer.

When Sigmund Freud draws a parallel between the worldviews recorded in history and the formation of the individual psyche [of the neurotic], he makes us look at animatism, animism, religion, and science.

Although animatism gains an exclusive name, it is often understood as a pre-animism phase. From pre-animism to religion, we deal, most importantly, with explaining the world under the "omnipotence of thought". Moreover, what precisely divides the first two phases is the outsourcing of the individual's understandings, in the figure of spirits, namely angels and demons. Witchcraft and magic belong in this paragraph.

When these worldviews are evoked, Freud uses the records that the anthropologist James Frazer made of totemic peoples, the aborigines of Oceania.

Julio Fachini, researcher of the philosophy of psychoanalysis:

As an observation, I mention that Freud identifies totemism in Melanesian, Polynesian, African, and American peoples, in addition to traces of totemism in several other cultures around the planet. For Freud, as for Frazer, and other anthropologists cited in Totem and Taboo (1913), the traces, vestiges, and inheritances of totemism seem to possess a character closer to the universal than limited to Australian aboriginal peoples.

It's more or less like this: what the human species experienced throughout history serves as a metaphor for personal development. That is to say, there is a "little aborigine" in each person, just as there is a "religious person" and a "scientist". Well, much more or less like this. Best-selling neuroscientists explain it with reptilian, limbic, and neocortex. Transactional analysis has a brilliant idea with Parent, Adult, and Child Ego States.

But it is only in the scientific phase, the last one, that one perceives the surrounding reality and conforms to it. It is when one stops making the Sun revolve around the Earth.

From here, one could discuss what post-truth is. The term has been vulgarly explained as the emotional and sentimental interest associated with a word or a text. From the psychoanalytic perspective, it is nothing new at all. Sad for journalism that didn't pay attention before.

It remains to be mentioned that the news audience is drugged, as can be proven by traces of cocaine in London's sewage or anti-inflammatory and antidepressant drugs in Curitiba's sewers.

France discusses "child psychiatry" almost every day. At the time of the Covid-19 pandemic, the government there provided ten therapy sessions for each child or young person between three and 17 years old.

There's something to think about regarding public behavior, isn't there?

The WandaVision series took me by surprise, in a good way. I have a certain prejudice against superhero movies (a conservative thing), because they demand a level of knowledge I don't possess about the characters and because they frequently subscribe to the epilepsy lobby, with flashing lights and booming sound effects.

I enjoyed the weekly release, which makes me anticipate the next episode, contrary to the tendency to binge indefinitely. Every Friday, a new one comes out on Disney+. This break from the norm makes me pay more attention to the plot.

In short, a world is created by Wanda, based on her childhood experiences. Everything revolves around the creator; she lives in the fantasy of her own experiences and beliefs. Now, the provocation is that the non-hero individual does the same thing, doesn't he/she?

Or even more so. She is encouraged to undo the fiction she lives because it affects not only her own life but also the lives of those close to her. It's almost painful to think about it, isn't it?

One of the emotions that television can provoke is crying. I cried abundantly, profusely, silently, watching Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) go through a magnetic bowl and dissolve into countless versions of herself, a visual metaphor that brings me closer to the reality of Ego States, among other perceptions of the multitude of times within a single person.

WandaVision gives me a perspective on the Marvel Universe that no other work has successfully achieved. Art that it is, it walks through darkness, through grief, through farewell.

Soon to be published, the book Philosophy, Psychoanalysis & Contemporaneity (Vol. II) is a read that tends to surprise those accustomed to a certain cultural pasteurization. We refer directly to a simplification trend so banal it's almost touching. But not in our book!

We, researchers from the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis program at the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR), have written essays with analyses, interpretations, and challenges to prestigious theories, and we offer (with the exception of Sgarbe's text and my own) a delightful literary experience.

Below are a few excerpts of what's to come.

‘Deviants’ from the Church

Starting with the work of researcher Jeferson Costa. He is the driving force behind the book. He not only conceived the publication but is also the link connecting the authors. Regarding the philosophical use of the word "libertinus", he explains, "we start from the hypothesis that this libertarian meaning has been preserved, at least within the contexts we will address in the scope of this work". Jeferson Costa, co-author of Philosophy, Psychoanalysis & Contemporaneity (Vol. II):

Libertinus is a word of Latin origin that indicated the condition of a freed person, that is, someone who worked forcibly for another person. Libertinus was a category, therefore, that referred to people who became free after having been enslaved or subjected to servitude by people considered free by birth. The category used to indicate such freeborn individuals was 'Ingenuus.' Therefore, the category libertinus came to define the action that metaphorically aimed at breaking the chains or resisting norms. This is how observant Christians defined the deviants. It is a fight against naiveté, both in the broad and current sense.

‘They Kill the Father’

Julio Fachini describes a peculiar relationship with the founding act of civilization. He deals with the complicity of the blood brothers who murdered their own father. Julio Fachini, co-author of "Philosophy, Psychoanalysis & Contemporaneity (Vol. II)":

The brothers, united by common hatred, kill the father and celebrate the deed with a meal in which the father's corpse is the food; they devour him 'raw, flesh, blood, and bones' (FREUD, 2012, p. 214), in a cannibalistic rite that seals the spirit of equality through complicity in the act.

‘Common Human’

As for me, I went to Freud with new questions about the malaise experienced in contemporary democracy, with the generous guidance of Dr. Francisco Verardi Bocca.

I wrote things that, frankly, should amuse most of us. My contribution:

The degrees of factual certainty in the human sciences can be strange, because they are relative, uncontained, lacking small and large paths chosen solely by the writer. At the end of the day, you have an ordinary human being, who believes in things that even God doubts, who may not care about scientific technique, let alone Freud and a conception of the universe that doesn't consider the need for Our Lord Jesus Christ for what is uniquely human and earthly.

Notice

There are many more authors, who will be arriving soon. As soon as the book is ready to be read, criticized, rejected, cited, and other things of the nature of books, I'll let you know.

Of all the things I read this year, one claimed that we are a generation that got thoroughly screwed. You know how selfish things are, it stuck with me, so I think it's true. It had to do with the successive economic and virological plagues. I don't think I was the only one who saw a motorcade of official vehicles, sirens blaring, with a message on repeat: "stay home". "Social isolation" instead of "physical distancing" makes you wonder. The world almost ended.

Just yesterday, I mean, in the broad scope of history, sports arenas were transformed into morgues; there was even talk that in Manaus people had died from lack of air. From high school, I carry with me a dear friend, Stella, cursed to work in healthcare, from whom I read, "you can believe in God without reservation until you see someone die of suffocation". To those who have faith, let us have faith despite the words of the prophet Jeremiah.

"If you are condemned to die, go and die; if you are designated for war, go and be killed; if you are designated to die of hunger, go and starve; if you are designated for exile, go into exile!"

I have the impression that from time to time God delivers us to the worst of ourselves, because, somehow, all of this came from his mind, and you know how selfish things are. But there's a lightness in the fact that the great art movements, the avant-gardes, are the result of what we overcome as humans. In art history, incredible beauty has served as a relief for the pains of mortality.

In 2021, I cursed in a violently violent way a large number of people who made me feel bad. I think it was an important step in the way I see things. "What does not become words becomes symptoms". Since the pepper had to burn someone, it might as well not be me. But this paragraph is a sin, not an infamy. And this is how I feel like a real person: "forgive me, because I am learning". Who knows, maybe you and I will make books and films based on this idea of reconnection. A shattered self-love is better than jumping out the window.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, at the end of time, what matters is how we treat people. And, thanks to God and the work of true friends whom I could list eternally, I understand that it's not about being the court jester, although for the Japanese the clown is the most intelligent person there is because they are capable of engaging everyone.

Communication is what you have in the already, in the now. I'm not going to be anything now that I haven't always been and always will be. I conclude that I am a terrible theologian and an even worse philosopher. But I assure you, my brothers and sisters, that asking for forgiveness is what sets my river back on course when I am lost. "But they are killing us!" So, go to them and ask for forgiveness. Go to them with the invitation to the exhibition.

In high school sociology classes since the 2000s, it's likely you've heard of Auguste Comte's (1798-1857) "positivism". Basically, he argued that we — you and I — have reached a rational level that operates exclusively in the "now".

For him, imaginations, fantasies, have given way to scientific "facts". This is where he stands on one side, and Sigmund Freud (and I) on the other.

In the Freudian understanding, although we have reached the "scientific" layer of development, the things of yesterday (in terms of the evolution of the species) are indeed part of life. This is what we call the "psychic phase". What we learned hunting for lunch or gathering fruit, back in the "Garden of Eden", is within us and active.

You know when you "rationally" explain something to someone, and it feels like you're talking to a brick wall? Sometimes, I seriously suspect it has to do with the "psychic" life of the other person. It's when we "feel" things instead of thinking about them. I do it daily, perhaps even right now in this post.