In my English class this week we discussed Herman Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" We discussed it from many angles, including Freudian with the id, ego, and superego. Here's what one group came up with

Lawyer- Id, he wants nothing but profits for his business, and while he seems charitable towards Bartleby, his true interest is in himself and his return to normalcy.

Bartleby- Ego, he seems to not do anything that would bring him any delight, and he seems to plan and regulate what is in store for him.

Nutter, Turkey, and Ginger-Nut- Superego- These characters seems to moderate between Bartleby and the Lawyer. In several instances, the Lawyer asks "you men over there" what to do with Bartleby.

there was much discussion about this, and i was wondering what type of ideas everyone else had that i could bring to the table this week.

That's an, umm, interesting interpretation. I'd always thought that Bartelby was Melville's expression of contempt towards the mundane world.

yes, he very much is, or his is the Jesus/Job figure in an archetypal reading, the poletariot (sp...:bugeye: )) in a Marxist reading, ex. but i'm specifaclly looking for the id/ego/superego ideas, since this is the phsycology forum.

I was always taught that freud was the F-word. Try taking it to pseudoscience if you want it to be taken seriously.

This is the first time i've posted in human science, but freudian ideas of the mind (psychology) don't really have much to do with ufos and the paranormal...:bugeye:

freud has more to do with ufo's than with science. truly, it's all speculation.

If you want to talk about psychology you've got to use the Jungian paradigm.

Actually, use the Jungian paradigm if you want to sound like a fucking moron who doesn't know real science.

Originally posted by Xev
Actually, use the Jungian paradigm if you want to sound like a fucking moron who doesn't know real science. Hey, lighten up, X. It's just a MODEL. Many people find it to be a handy way to study human behavior. It's more detailed, descriptive, and useful than Freud's id-ego-superego trinity, or the even starker good-vs-evil spectrum that's the best the patriarchal monotheistic religions have to offer.

And it's only set forth as a model, to be used if found useful and ignored if not. Nobody thumps it and says there are 23 god- or demon-like autonomous spirits acutally living inside you or that giving yourself over to your dark side is going to make you talk like Darth Vader.

The fact that it provides a well-fitted interface linking literature, mythology, religion and other cultural forms makes it a good model for those of us who think it's important to track the advancement and occasional lapses in that culture throughout the ascendance of Homo sapiens.

I don't present it as science and I don't personally know anyone who does. The people I do know are all students of literature, historians, management consultants, sci fi film buffs, and others to whom the model comes in handy.

I know that some people call psychology a science, and I don't sit and argue with them, but I suspect I am more in agreement with your point of view which undoubtedly maintains that psychology simply doesn't satisfy a rigorous definition of science.

It doesn't have to. It's a tool that works.

Considering that people get away with calling sociology and economics sciences, I'll just continue to sit out the argument and be content to use archetypes whenever they come in handy.