View Full Version : Shut-upness: Living a lie


coberst
03-10-07, 03:39 PM
Shut-upness: Living a lie

Those who know say that Kierkegaard (circa 1840) was a psychoanalyst without fear of being laughed at because he knew that the scoffers are uninformed. Few sapiens have such courage born of self-confidence. The noted psychologist Mowrer said “Freud had to live and write before the earlier work of Kierkegaard could be correctly understood and appreciated.” Such, is genius.

Wo/man is a union of polar opposites; self-consciousness and physical body. It is thus “the true essence of man”. “Leading modern psychologists have themselves made it the corner stone of their understanding.”

The evolution into self-consciousness from self-satisfying ignorance inherent in animal nature had one great tragedy for wo/mankind, which is anxiety or dread. It is our very humanness which produces anxiety--dread of death. This anxiety results from the ambiguity of our situation and our inability to overcome such an ambiguity. This ubiquity of ambiguity drives us into the creation of a virtual world in which to live. Self-consciousness cannot be denied, we cannot disappear into a state of vegetation, we cannot flee dread; we can only create delusions--a virtual reality.

The task of the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology are to discover the strategies that humans use to avoid anxiety. How do we function automatically and uncritically in our virtual world and how do these strategies deprive us of true growth and freedom of action?

Today we talk about ‘repression’ and ‘denial’; Kierkegaard, the pioneer, called these same things “shut-upness”. He recognized the ‘half-obscurity’ in which wo/man lives her life, he recognized that man recognizes the truth of ceremony, how many times to bow when walking past the altar, he knows things in the same way that a pupil uses ABC of a mathematical expression but not when it is changed to DEF. “He is therefore in dread whenever he hears something not arranged in the same order.”

Shut-upness is what we today call repression. Kierkegaard recognized a “lofty shut-upness” and a “mistaken shut-upness”. It is important that a child be reared in a lofty shut-upness, i.e. reserve, because it represents an ego-controlled and self-confident perception of the world.

Mistaken shut-upness, however, results “in too much blockage, too much anxiety, too much effort to face up to experience by an organism that has been overburdened and weakened in its own controls…more automatic repression by an essentially closed personality”. Good is openness to new possibilities and evil is closed to such possibility.

Shut-upness is called, by Kierkegaard, “the lie of character”. “It is easy to see that shut-upness eo ipso signifies a lie, or, if you prefer, untruth. But untruth is precisely unfreedom…the elasticity of freedom is consumed in the service of close reserve…Close reserve was the effect of the negating retrenchment of the ego in the individuality.”

This ‘lie of character’ is developed by the infant’s need to adjust to the world. This unfreedom becomes mistaken shut-upness when the character becomes too fearful of the world to open itself up to its possibilities. Such individuals become ‘inauthentic’; they are not their own person; they follow a life style that becomes automatic and uncritical, they become locked in tradition. This infant grows up becoming the ‘automatic cultural-man’.

“Devoid of imagination, as the Philistine always is, he lives in a certain trivial province of experience as to how things go, what is possible, what usually occurs…Philistinism tranquilizes itself in the trivial”.

Quotes from “The Denial of Death”; Pulitzer Prize winner for nonfiction by Ernest Becker.

draqon
03-10-07, 04:37 PM
call it whatever they want, I trust myself only.

Baron Max
03-10-07, 07:21 PM
Oh, god, oh, god! I wonder if this "coberst" character will ever get fuckin' tired of lecturing us? ...especially by just copying bullshit from someone else's fuckin' books?!

Geez, will it never end?

Baron Max

heliocentric
03-10-07, 09:04 PM
reading over those Kierkegaard quotes im pretty positive hes actually talking about traditionalism rather than repression as we understand it today.
I think hes really pinpointing a kind of society-wide repression, thats probably indicative more of the social trend of that era rather than a negative (individual) personality trait.

Repression is actually good stuff in small doses, not very fashionable to say that but if we spilled the contents of our psyches over each day in day out we'd probably end up killing each other, or ourselves, or both.

Grantywanty
03-11-07, 08:00 AM
Repression is actually good stuff in small doses, not very fashionable to say that but if we spilled the contents of our psyches over each day in day out we'd probably end up killing each other, or ourselves, or both.

If suddenly all of it came out, maybe, and maybe only for some. But if one gently and carefully un-represses, a little bit over time...that's a different story.

It is certainly somethign worth checking out, this assumption that we must always be at least somewhat split against ourselves.

If you assumption (a pretty widely held one) is not true, what a great tragedy.

heliocentric
03-11-07, 04:21 PM
Well its not really an assumption, a truely free society can never work, im sure any sociologist or political academic would say the say thing.

The point i was trying to make though is that this doesnt 'have' to be a bad thing, repression in small doses is both a great way for humans to co-exist and a great way for individuals to deal with trauma.
Repression doesnt have to be intrinsically detrimental nor does it have to be a dirty word in society as it seems to have become.
Modern self-help Schpiel has confused us into thinking that if we let EVERYTHING out and bring it all to the surface everything will be ok.

This actually isnt the case atall, infact there was a study done a while back into how psychologists/Psychiatrists treat post-tramatic stress disorder.
The study actually found that the methodology of bringing the event to the surface to be 'delt with' actually made patients much much worse.
The psyche represses events for a reason its a very efficient and evolved method for dealing with negative events.

Grantywanty
03-12-07, 07:57 AM
Well its not really an assumption, a truely free society can never work, im sure any sociologist or political academic would say the say thing.

I sure there periods in history when things we take for granted, say the end of slavery, democracy, capitalism, women's suffrage, etc, would have been scoffed at as pernicious and or impossible dreams by every academic.


The point i was trying to make though is that this doesnt 'have' to be a bad thing, repression in small doses is both a great way for humans to co-exist and a great way for individuals to deal with trauma.
Repression doesnt have to be intrinsically detrimental nor does it have to be a dirty word in society as it seems to have become.

I agree. Because of traumatic experiences it is good that the body represses. Of course newer approaches to dealing with traumatized people tend to focus on reducing the necessity of that repression. Immediately and long term.

Modern self-help Schpiel has confused us into thinking that if we let EVERYTHING out and bring it all to the surface everything will be ok.

A lack of care and caution adn encouragement to vomit emotions and leap into actions is nto healthy.


This actually isnt the case atall, infact there was a study done a while back into how psychologists/Psychiatrists treat post-tramatic stress disorder.
The study actually found that the methodology of bringing the event to the surface to be 'delt with' actually made patients much much worse.
The psyche represses events for a reason its a very efficient and evolved method for dealing with negative events.

Short term. But long term it gives you a real chance not to be split into a variety of selves.