I'm reading his introductory lectures right now. Just finished up the chapter on the introduction to associations and that trains of associations lead to complexes based on certain stimuli. All of it seems very reasonable to me so far.

>>24863905
You're more like the social psychologist Erving Goffmann than a psychologist proper, or George Herbert Mead.

>>24863905
>C) That it is intrinsically personal, as opposed to an ever changing RAM drive where current thing in-group morality/taboos are stored and constantly being updated, something which can hardly be construed as "self".
Please do expand on this, as I do not understand it well enough to consider and contemplate.

>>24863941
Essentially correct, I suppose I’m wondering what justification there is for being a “psychologist proper” when social psychology is the obvious path you ought to go down in understanding a social animal.
Is there any proof that the subconscious is persistent, and not something which materializes anew in each case depending on social context?

>>24863905
>I have to date seen now proof that:
presumably this was a typo for 'seen no proof'?

>>24864478
Irrelevant to the thread, post something better next time

>>24863905
There is no such thing as the subconscious as Freud conceived of it, no.
Stating that the subconscious flatly "doesn't exist" is more difficult because so many others have used it sloppily or deliberately incorrectly, but yeah, it's fundamentally a corrupt category.

>>24863905
A) You don't want to be a faggot.
B) You're a faggot all the time.
C) No one around want you to be a faggot.
QED

>freudian slip with no/now
>giving proof of the very things you claim not have seen evidence of
Cosmically funny really