Adorno on Pleasure: The Critique of Psychoanalysis

Theodor Adorno, the Arch-curmudgeon of the Frankfurt School of Critical theory, devotes a brief but substantial section of his Minima Moralia to a …

Adorno on Pleasure: The Critique of Psychoanalysis

———- A mix of critique and psychoanalysis.

Interestingly enough, I finally read Walter Benjamin’s “art in the age of mechanical reproduction”. I never realized that it was a short little essay. Lol. In my undergrad I remember reading one of Benjamin’s books for class and it was a thick ass book. So I thought this famous little essay would be a monster. But it’s really tiny.

It’s interesting also reading this post about Adorno and psychoanalysis in comparison to Benjamin’s essay.

Benjamin’s essay didn’t really impress me very much. Somehow from what I remember in my undergraduate class which was about modernity and the development of intentional city space, I thought this famous little essay would be packed with meaningful significance.

Instead I saw an author who’s whining because people are not conforming with his enlightenment view of art.

In reading the tiny essay, I got the distinct feeling of what now I can really classify as “enlightenment” review of the world, which is to say, that coming out of the 19th century, and the imposition of industrialization, the people that ended up in these densely packed cities, and indeed after a world war, look back to some sort of yesteryear of infinite promise that has been thwarted by modern industrialization.

And then I think back, or within, my own generation, and the world that we bring for the next generation, like the millennials or generation Z, and I can’t help but notice that there seems to be this incessant resistance to see what humanity actually is. It seems like part of humanity is to hang onto its childhood, grow up a little bit, find that the world sucks, think back to “the good old days”, and then just struggle every day to make the world how it should’ve been.

So this tendency for humanity I would say is part of indeed of how humanity is; which is to say, that this is what humanity does.

But then also I think what it does is it just is. Humanity literally just does what it likes to do, whatever that is. And then the world manifests in such a way that is different than it was noticeably 20 or 30 years ago. It appears as though every 20 or 30 years a noticeable difference arises with the human ability to notice.

Further, I don’t believe that human beings as a whole group are necessarily heading in any direction. It appears to me as if what human beings do also is think that they move towards something intentionally.

Wow this may happen on a small scale individually, I think I’d even go far to say that, in a very Jordan Peterson ask kind of manner, people are always looking toward the telos, Out toward the horizon, and never paying much attention to what’s going on right in front of them. It seems human beings, at least as a group, avoid the Local, or I should say, the way that human beings conceive the local it’s typically through already having gone out to the horizon and then attempting to look back. I think this is just what human beings do, and that it is not that human beings are really changing anything by doing this. It’s more that this is how human beings manifest themselves as a being in the universe.

Innoway I feel that this is wet Adorno is saying through the comment upon psychoanalysis. He’s really saying that the pleasure principle and reason are one in the same. Even though Adorno would have it appear as some sort of critique of modern industrial capitalism, I think he is saying more about what humans actually do in so much as this is what we are. 

I think there’s something to say also about The mortality of human beings 100 years ago compared to now, the ability to see and conceptualize, and that pretty much the development of cities at least in America, was by young people. It seems that the capitalism that has been left to us for modernity is a kind of childish dream. It was not so much that they were all these mature people coming to the cities to do shit, as much as there was an abundance of young inexperienced people who came to the cities to try and get work because they were sick of farming. And then they got together and started doing all these drugs, like cocaine and caffeine and alcohol and tobacco and heroin, and started thinking about how great they are. Fueled by these intoxicants which really flame self-centeredness and Narcissist self righteousness, here is massive amounts of people who are being left a traditional culture of dog eat Dog competition. And they’re all getting high all the time with each other in a densely packed culture.

It’s no wonder that the world is so fucked up when we look back to the lineage of tradition and think that they had such wise things to say. Because in actuality they were just a bunch of kids separated from their families, raising families, being pissed off and frustrated, developing ways to put food in their mouth’s not through actually doing physical labor where they have to engage with the actual universe, on the contrary, sitting around and trying to do the best they can to do nothing but think about things in order for them to justify why they’re sitting around getting wasted and thinking about things.

I think to move forward, we should begin to maybe look at this kind of tradition that we think was so great, populated by people who were so smart.

Maybe when we look back to these wonderful essays and ideas about what humanity is and what is not and what it should be, maybe we would be better equipped to understand what was going on when we see that they were basically having growing pains from adolescence.


Object and Form

I am finishing another paper I hope to publish and it occasioned me going over some of Graham Harmans newer books.

Harman is the contemporary philosopher noted for Object Oriented Ontology. Fyi

I am repeatedly reminded of the hard line Harman draws for his project of objects. My opinion of his ideas runs three-fold:

1) OOO is the polemical position from which I gain the structures for my project. Ironically. Lol.

2) his obstinacy and continual advocacy and adventures ever further into objects which are independent of human mind is inspiring and kind of annoying. That’s what makes him so great! Lol.

He is a professional philosopher, so, I have to give the benefit of doubt that he has work to do and so must stay the course.

3) his philosophical position runs on sheer willpower. This I say because I think his position contain compromises that I feel must be made in order for ooo to be tenable as a real position. But he does not make them or seem to notice them.

So, I figure He doesn’t make the compromises Becuase they are really involved in my work, not his. 😁


This post is from my confronting his obstinacy. And I am putting this out there:

What is a form in the context of Object Being?

An object is the form of change.

(21) (PDF) Consciousness & Masturbation: Witold Gombrowicz’s Onanomaniacal Novel Cosmos | Douglas Glover –

(21) (PDF) Consciousness & Masturbation: Witold Gombrowicz’s Onanomaniacal Novel Cosmos | Douglas Glover –
— Read on

———– I guess it’s a book review, but it seems like more and is pretty cool nonetheless.

Psychological Flexibility and Psychedelic Therapy

This was originally published on EntheoNation. It’s been said in a number of different ways, perhaps for as long as psychedelics have been around: …

Psychological Flexibility and Psychedelic Therapy

————- “We teach flexibility over rigid Ness.”

Lately, many people have been pondering the notion that mental issues and mental disorders Are brought about due to A fixed set of ideas of how things are supposed to be.

The most rigid of these ideas is what we know of as identity. The mechanism is not often easily understood, simply because we as human beings tend to consolidate this sense of self, this “I” as indeed “me” which is the locus whereby thoughts, emotions, and actions coalesce necessarily.

It is from this center of self, so to speak, from which then we assume to be able to negotiate or somehow compensate for what the world gives us. In essence, we are constantly reifying the notion that there is a self as opposed to the world, and so if something isn’t going correctly it’s either something that is wrong with me, or something that is wrong with the world.

The newer kind of approach breaks from this fixed ontological ideal.

At first, we tend to approach it from the outside. We tend not to approach from this “fixed center”. Because typically human beings are pretty much locked into this notion of real truth. And so millimeter by millimeter, layer by layer, we tend to try and work from the outside in to hopefully allow the “dysfunction” or the “issue” to resolve itself fundamentally, which is to say that the “innermost self” will flex a little bit, will change a little bit of it substance such that the issue will lessen or go away.

Upon the action of psychedelics, it seems this rigid fixed center might be more readily available and open to an understanding of itself that is less concrete, less attached to other aspects it encounters and draws into its orbit in order to create identity.






Foams and Networks: Sloterdijk and Latour’s Atmospheric Philosophies

This is Sloterdijk’s explicitness: You are on life support, it’s fragile, it’s technical, it’s public, it’s political, it could break down—it is …

Foams and Networks: Sloterdijk and Latour’s Atmospheric Philosophies

————- A sort of phenomenology of structure, I guess.

Adventures in Camp Prisoney Land: I am a Vanilla Latte Princess with a Seaweed Spine, by Catherine LaFleur

There is magic in the air at Camp Prisoney Land. The happiest prison on earth contains an aura brought on by Art Spring, a charity serving …

Adventures in Camp Prisoney Land: I am a Vanilla Latte Princess with a Seaweed Spine, by Catherine LaFleur

——— A wonderful juxtaposition.

A flaw in method?

This morning i am pondering between practitioners who subscribe the the empirical science research paradigm and those who don’t.

I wonder if there could be a study which measures whether the empirical research method achieves better results for practice than one that doesn’t?

I mean, how could we research that? Because in order to do any research on that particular subject, the only way anyone would consider it valid, is if I went to school and studied the research methods and then implemented an experiment to study whether or not the its methods different in anyway and effectiveness?

Sounds like some loaded dice. Or a stacked deck.

I think it is this kind of contradiction which might argue for the subject of knowledge power and modern identity is not a true manifestation or description of the situation? 

And I think the answers to these questions thus point us in the direction of the question “what are we trying to accomplish?” When we see empirical science as something that’s giving us valid information? Valid for what?

So I wonder if “the benefit of humanity” is really a sufficient answer To get at the truth of the matter, so far as these institutions and effective practice go.

“The greatest value of a picture is when it forces us to notice what we never expected to see”*…

From infographics to digital renders, today’s scientists have ready access to a wide array of techniques to help visually communicate their research.…

“The greatest value of a picture is when it forces us to notice what we never expected to see”*…

An exploration of power

I was pondering some ideas that a friend of mine has. She is very conspiracy theorist.

And, despite all the glamorous Shiney yet behind the scenes workings of Self interest, my mind went to further or upon a deeper strata of the idea of power itself..

 I think what makes people nervous about power in our current global capitalist world, is that people will become so rich that they will be able to manipulate people because they have so much money. And that the rest of the people will be forced into doing things that they don’t want to do. Or something along those lines. I feel that’s the crux of the issue with power, that people will abuse it and that other people will suffer.

For example my friend who feels that there is a global conspiracy implemented by the liberal left and Donald Trump is the last bastion of hope for the American way and the free market system.

I’m not taking any position on whether this is true or not, but merely commenting on what may be Allowing or informing people to develop these conspiracies in such a way that they become so convincing. And my I conclusion is that it could be based on this idea that some people are going to control me despite my best efforts and intentions, And they will be able to do this because of, basically, the power that they’ve come upon with money. 


But I would like to offer a different view of what’s actually occurring now with power and capitalism.

I feel that there is no putting a cap on the potential for people to want to gain power for themselves; I mean, we may want to, we may argue ethically why we should, but ultimately the capacity for people to manipulate discursive categories is infinite, and so we will never be able to put a cap on human potential.

But I don’t mean this in the sense of authoritarianism or despotism, I mean this in the regular sense that me as a free person, I wanna be able to go water skiing wherever I want whenever I want. I want to be able to have the best cut of meat on my plate, and the best chefs serving me the best food at all times. I want to be able to not have to work anymore. I want to be able to play video games 24 seven and do cocaine and crystal meth as much as I want.

I’m talking about this kind of basic human desire to do whatever they want. I’m not applying some sort of innate human idea of ethics, because we could argue for centuries about whether doing what I want is really doing what I want, or is it really doing what other people want and I just think that I’m doing what I want, or if there really is this fundamental “free self” that if left unchecked will fuck everyone else up.


My proposal is based in the fact that money is just an ideal category. It is not based on anything that is “physical”, for example “finite resources”.  The idea of money economy is not based on whether I have enough food to eat or the world does. Money has to do with the idea that there are resources. Because ultimately even if there was a finite amount of food to eat and less and less people are eating them, and starving and dying, I would still be able to be a member of the last group on earth able to survive on what resources are left. Given that there is no resources in that all humans die never happens in actuality. And I mean “never happens” in the sense that if all human beings die, then any knowledge that we would be having of any sort of analysis ceases to exist and utterly fails.

Ok S’more.

My proposal is that the human propensity, capacity, and ability, to take advantage and figure out a way to get what they need and want despite anyone else, is for all purposes, infinite. The idea that it is not is based on the idea of finite resources, which I said just above, is really just an idea category against this potential for human beings. People who make tons of money basically understand that all we are dealing with is ideas. Because all really someone Hass to do in order to make tons of money is think differently. And I would suggest that that is what people who make tons of money are actually doing: they are thinking differently than the rest of the people who just have to scrape by and work day today so they can go water skiing for two weeks in the summer. 

Now; The fear that we have of people having control over us is based in the idea of finite resources. That is really the whole of Marxist critique, namely, that money is just an idea and this idea is of finite resources.

But what I’m saying is that the reality of the matter for people to take advantage of situations, to come upon ideal situations as if they are material situations, to make what is merely an idea into material, but also to understand that the idea itself is material, this ability of the human being places us in a different relationship to power then we historically want or even like toto reckon.

The analogy that I will use right now is that the conventional and traditional way to view power is like power over the sun affects what can happen on the earth. And this is to say that if someone could control the sun, then everyone on earth would have to submit to whatever the person that controls the sun once. This is the primal fear which motivates pretty much every analysis of social economy and global capitalism, I feel.

But I’m saying that what will happen as people, as a certain sect or group of people, become more and more powerful because they have more and more money and are able to manipulate more and more sub systems, eventually the “rest of the people” will be unaffected by this echelon of mega money power brokers.

I am saying that what will happen is a quantitative change, as opposed to merely a qualitative change in the ability for power to exert influence.

Instead of someone controlling the sun who this puts everyone who lives on the earth under the potential control of the person who controls the sun…

…the analogy at some point, when some sort of threshold is crossed in the potential of power-money, is more like people controlling Jupiter Or maybe Pluto is a better analogy. Yes we could say by some strange gravitational analysis, that if someone can control Jupiter then the earth will be affected, but the analysis between the control of Jupiter and it’s effects on the earth would be so involved, so intricate, so theoretical in it’s nature, that the actual effect on the people living on earth would be virtually and for all purposes for people on earth, negligible. 

What I’m saying is that at some point the people with so much money-power have stepped so far away from the regular people, that the manipulations do not even matter anymore. That their effect is only theoretical and not practical in the least. The people who have gained such power feel good because they feel like they’re manipulating things on such a grand scale. But in actuality there manipulations are so far away from the minutia of regular daily life that they don’t even matter. It’s kind of the opposite of chaos theory; that is, The analogy is more like by the time The mega storm hurricane has developed over the Caribbean, The butterfly in Siberia is just hanging out on the flowers slurping up some nectar.

The traditional analysis of power pretty much ends with chaos theory as explaining all relations of power as interconnected. There really is no reason to believe that everything is interconnected Except that theorists have conjoined certain concepts which trickle down into the regular person who gets pieces of it, and then that person has faith that there is a connection between me using the word “meme”, say” and the actual occurrence of various pictures and words on the Internet. Yet never do most of these people even consider their connection to the word “meme” has to do with a proposal for cultural communication that has nothing or very little to do with these pictures and words on the Internet. For all purposes, the theory of the meme has nothing to do with this person typing on their computer and posting a funny picture with some funny words. They are utterly disconnected. And it is only in so much as I might want to think through my thoughts and make some sort of sensible connection, that there is indeed a connection. But in actuality it’s just me thinking that it is the case. It is merely a kind of faith based in a sort of hope.

So, as I continue, in so much as the theoreticians would continue to argue that there is some sort of effect between the mega power money people controlling Jupiter, and how that is having an effect on the earth, there will fear remain, and fears that justify various conspiracies that can never be founded in actual Knowable circumstancecircumstance.