Do-Be-Do-Be-DON'T -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:58:39 03/31/08 Mon
Author: CS Holden
Subject: Do-Be-Do-Be-DON'T

Our discussion today of "Whence the Id?" got me thinking about the language of "Do" versus the language of "Don't." I tend to think about this relationship in terms of the Genesis version of the Fall of Man, in that Adam and Eve maybe never would have gotten curious about the Tree if God had not made it a "forbidden" tree. That is, the language of "don't" can have more impact than the language of "do."

So in terms of the SuperEgo and Id and mimetic desire, if the SuperEgo is the model that says, "Do not do this," it makes perfect sense that it precedes the Id, which says, "I want to do specifically that." The quickest way to start a rivalry, it seems to me, is to tell someone not to do something. For example, the formula for getting someone killed in a horror movie is to tell that person, "Oh, you don't want to go in there. It's too dangerous."

But can it work the other way? I've read some child/parenting psychologists who say the key to teaching a child right and wrong is to use the language of "Do"--that is, instead of saying, "Don't color outside the lines," one says, "Be sure to color inside the lines." But then isn't that the language of prohibition, of limits? And thus, isn't that still the language of the SuperEgo, just in a different form? The boundary of the lines doesn't necessarily exist until one establishes that it is a boundary, and boundaries are meant to be stepped over, right? Is the language of prohibition necessarily the language of prohibition and "Don't"?

Alternatively, is there any way that the SuperEgo can instruct without inherently bringing about the Id?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Do-Be-Do-Be-DON'T -- Kiernan, 22:05:29 04/02/08 Wed
Re: Do-Be-Do-Be-DON'T -- JD, 19:30:43 04/06/08 Sun