|
Facts of Repression
Since psychoanalysts
are specialists in this matter - I shall begin with their case.
In a recent
symposium - New York 1997 - the most renowned post Freudian specialists in
the Moses affair collated their progress made subsequent to the1938 publishing
of Moses and Monotheisn. I was not present, but did receive a report
of the meeting from one of the the leading representatives in attendance.
When I asked
him if Velikovsky had been mentioned - he answered that one of the speakers
had certainly listed him in his references.
It
was all about Freud's student, he said, who established in 1960
the identity between Oedipus and Akhnaton. My reporter asked me about
Velikovsky's thesis, and was surprised to learn of the matching case between
Sophocles' play and Egyptologian data. It indicated how the symposiunm had
well informed him about the progress since Freud's death!
When I asked
him if Hermes Trismegistus had been mentionned, he said: Yes,
certainly!
But
he was even more surprised when I mentioned F.A.Yates' 1964 study, which
disclosed that the Renaissance was on the brink of identifying Trismegistus
as Moses himself, and that his Solar City and his Monotheist revolution ranked
this legendary King of Egypt as the most probable Middle-Ages remembrance
of the historical Akhnaton.
When we talked
about the Egyptologist who published, in 1990, the identity of Moses as Akhnaton,
he said: Oh, yes, he was mentioned for sure! By the way, what is his
name...
Thus, to conclude,
I was, once again, reassured that Psychoanalysis was a good tool for the
observation of the Freudian repression!
As you will
see, if you have the will to so acknowledge what is described and explained
in this web site, - that the discovery of Akhnaton by egyptology (Lepsius
1900) has been followed by a magnificent display of one century's resistance
toward this knowledge, which is still vivid today when New York hosted
the state of the affair at the dusk of the century.
|
The second piece
of material that I am exposing as revealed repression may be
farfetched. Yet it is a solid observation, even if my conclusion is a
personal one.
It the
reader is not acquainted with The Selfish Gene, it will
suffice to be known that its author, Richard Dawkins is a Lecturer in Zoology
at Oxford University and a Fellow of New College. With these titles, he wrote
a book about General Genetics published in 1976, then again in 1989, and
subsequently reprinted several times. It became an orthodox textbook,
and even coined a new conceptualization which has been dramatically extended
in Cybernetics.
As its title
indicates, it is about the 'selfishness' of a replicator that Dawkins defined
as its ability to raise its survival prospects.
Now, you will
be interested to look at the unique and exemplary ability of the Y chromosome
for maintaining its survival presence through male lineages
 .Just to think that
a Y gene is unique within the genetic pool for being constantly hosted by
living human bodies gives an idea of a metaphore for maneuvering one's
prospectus in an ecosystem.
In this prospect,
one must wonder why Dawkins' textbook NEVER mentions the Y chromosome. Would
you believe it! Perhaps not. So you may have to read the entire book
and send me an email indicating where the most blattant expression of gene
selfishness is represented in the founding text of this law. For just
as a memo, I shall hereby copy two paragraphs from the conclusive apogee
of the book, which summarizes its discourse:
We were built
as gene machines, created to pass our own genes. But that aspect of us will
be forgotten in three generations. Your child, even your grandchild,
may bear a resemblance to you, perhaps in facial features or color of hair,
or in a talent for music. But as each generation passes, the contribution
of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible
proportions. Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes
that is in any one of us is bound to crumble away. Elisabeth II is a direct
descendant of William the Conqueror. Yet it is quite probable that
she bears not a single one of the old king's genes. We should not seek
immortality in reproduction.
But if you
contribute to the world's culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune,
invent a spark plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after
your genes have dissolve in the common pool. Socrates may, or may not,
have a gene or two alive in the world today. As G.C. Williams
has remarked, but who cares?
The biblical
Aaron cares, I guess, as well as the Cohen family, whose genes still
sustain his lineage
. How then,
can Dawkins give the example of an unusual kingship lineage, since at its
foundation it is supposed to be carried along by male heirs? Why does he
say that our genes are halved when his science contradicts the understanding
of the patronymic Y function
and the 100% transmission of the male
gene? Obviously, this demonstrates some repression around this matter...
What is the
meaning of this repression ? In eluding the 100% transmission Y case,
Dawkins is a hero for those who may not want cloning to make sense
- that is, 100% transmission of the whole genome. That can be read
with Sherlock Freud's glasses, where the author himself underlined
'collection' - above in the excerpt; for he rests there on the emotional
figure of the genome that is any one of us, while in his opening
chapter he concluded :
I shall argue
that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is
not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It
is the gene, the unit of heredity.
He may argue
that bread is made of genes, yet he puts the butter on with the
persona (i.e. the individual which is any one of us). Dawkins
may patent his method for this sleeping pill. But for the sake of the
breed, we shall better use the complex dimension of an anima (the
genome as a unit). Of course its asks for the circumstance of our ability
for genetic engineering - and that requires our awakening to the history
of science.
|
