On Apr 11, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Philip Pilkington wrote:
> Eh...
>
> (a) The Freudian thesis is at least a century old
>
> and
>
> (b) It assumes that children's first contribution to society is a
> shit...
> which makes it somewhat immortal.
>
>
> Perhaps its not right (barring the empirical consistency); but the
> theory
> isn't exactly historical.
Yo, dude, you said:
> And hilarious that it sort of explains why more people would care
> more about
> their toilet during times in which they have to "hold back" on
> spending...
But I'm saying that this obsession long predates the imposed "holding back" on spending.
You know, Freudian theory is something I know pretty well. I've got quite a few pages in Wall Street that do a psychoanalysis of credit money vs. gold-based money - a regime of oral entitlement connected with the breakdown of patriarchal authority vs. a system driven by the guilty sadomasochism of the anus driven by the law of the father. So your ahistorical version of events doesn't really hold, um, water either.
Doug