The End of Psychology Is The Peak of Psychology (Immediacy & Interpretation, Final Part)

§1: We are pursuing two things here via theory which is really one thing. We can use an intense and hypermodern contemporary phrase to describe it, “dialectical psychodynamics.” Who will understand this? Maybe you? We will Occam this phrase into another, simpler phrase, carrying the essence of all of psychology and philosophy. The logic of the unconscious and the conscious, of Absolute Self-Interest and Ideas in the world through others and objects is understood via the western canon of philosophy and psychology.

§2: A good history detailing how everyone has a different idea about what rationality is, and to point out the contradictions, isn’t a specific philosophy in-itself, besides saying rationality is maybe subjective, which I can say that right here. It does however, hint at the void at the center of the pursuit. That void is not a system of rationality in itself, however. It wouldn’t say enough, it just says there are different systems of rationality without it itself being a system. It can be gamified, made immediate, reflected upon, but it is still something which works with Ideas. For this, we can use Occam’s Razor to bring all of philosophy into a specific Idea or Ideas which are non-intellectual in nature.

§3: Conceptually speaking, which is to say your use of this meta-idea about ideas, should give you a method for using psychodynamic concepts with dialectical rationality, as well as introduce where scientific method and empiricism come into this. The final concepts of measure which are themselves ideas which can hold politics, philosophy, technology, and other ideas. All creations can be measured and immediately understood by humanity by concepts which are simpler than the essential knowledge of the original concept.

§4: My obsession previous to this effort has been expounding on the idea of self-interest. Since people do not recognize their own psychological egoism, which is to say, their intrinsic inability to ever escape the echoes of their own self-interest within any moral action, making any subject which had a mistaken view of self-interest ultimately irrational in comprehending its own actions, I had cared a lot about this in-itself, but now I care about it insofar as it is necessary for a system of rational subjectivity.

§5: Myself concretely: I have discovered an 80 dollar per year (per year!) group psychotherapy program that says it isn’t psychotherapy and can prove it isn’t when the lawyers show up within Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse. Needless to say I am having a good time and I try not to be an asshole. I show up to the Meta-therapy session group on challenging Automatic Negative thoughts, as I have infinite groups I can participate in, I try to get my money’s worth. Someone was assigned the task of being the negative thinker (me) and someone was assigned to challenge my thoughts. I couldn’t help but to show up in a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy group about stopping negative thoughts and bringing up a core principle of mine: “I have negative thoughts about people, places, things, and events, because judging things that are bad is being accurate about that thing.”

§6: The first antithesis to saying negativity was good, from the unseasoned in negative logic cognitivist, was that I didn’t have the right to have negative thoughts or judgments about someone else. I explained that the cognitivist was “totally valid,” but in a literal sense I do have the right to have negative judgments about other people. I went on to explain that in a system like feudalism, you may not have the right to have negative judgments. I also explained that at work you kind of don’t have a right to negative judgments because people will punish you for having negative judgments.

§7: The second antithesis from the cognitivist was the following: It was revealed to me my negative judgments weren’t in this case, negative at all, and in fact you have to call things out for being wrong. A ridiculous yet exactly Hegelian answer. I have become sublated into cognitivism, and it happens quite easily since all words can link together rationally if you add a little bit. But they could have refuted me in a better way. This is not the authentic use of this tool, so the results are unnatural.

§8: After this bit of complex dialectics (not my own self-rutation, but the actual historical one telling me I wasn’t actually negative when I was declaring myself to be negative) one of my fellow patient-members realized that they didn’t like being dragged around metaverse rooms against their will for poor interpretations of an anti-promotion rule. This member decided that was bad, and like I said previously, he had the right to think this. The non-therapist therapist made passive aggressive remarks about it. Neither was quite equipped for their discussion, but that’s what a book on rational subjectivity is for. They will undoubtedly read it and be ready next time. Just kidding. Samsara, samsara, samsara!

§9: Power from knowledge of the subject flows into the group. The process is to convert ideas and discourses into other ideas and discourses by virtue of a purer, more accurate analysis of a subject. I do this, the cognitivists do this. I am a subversive presence via my sheer intelligence, a pretentious, but true statement. There are much smarter people than me, I am a common, not very striking kind of intellect, but I am very good at abstract reasoning.  This pure knowledge power is not however, administrative power. One can easily be subject to the whim of the other with actual power at any moment. All morality bends to this dynamic the fair group and the enforcer of fairness work in tandem, with the enforcer always having the final say.

§10: Having reached a limit of psychology, having studied psychology as I have, creating systems and deep understanding relating to the unconscious, the self, and what the people desire and how they mediate, I am moving on from psychology and into the popular imagination. Nature and Authenticity are two concepts, just like psychology is a concept. I will no longer be measuring using psychology, but rather using psychology and my knowledge of the history of philosophy to understand things both linguistically and essentially/conceptually via what is Natural and Authentic.

§11: All of your views, all of your egoism, can be better measured with others via the feeling of what is natural, the explaining why I wasn’t allowed to be authentic. The group’s purposes, the man’s complaints, all can be held by the concepts of processes of feeling natural or in line with what is natural, or being authentic and being in line or out of line with is authentic. These concepts are already a force in the world, and their ability to guide while informed with the negativity of the entire western canon of philosophy, I propose to you, is quite vast.

§12: Philosophy is a method of unconvering truth, it is a way of living, it is a mathematical interpretation of the world, but it is too intellectual and dense. It needs to be condensed into an easier and simpler idea. It can be carried via the dialectical exposition of any event or situation or person’s actions via the ideas of what is natural and authentic. It is more powerful than what is good. The critiques of authenticity and naturalism will never negate the power of naturalism and authenticity as it actually is in the world.

Conclusion:

§13: No matter how much we say natural is just a word, and authenticity is bound to the immediate impulse and its stupidity, the natural and authentic concepts will survive the entire lifespan of humanity in a way no Ideals will. It will never have a simple flag or political party, but the specter of the two concepts haunt all political parties and national ideals. Spanning a variety of cultures, politics, families, and backgrounds of all human pursuits. This makes this signifier an Ideal concept for understanding for everyone psychological and material conditions.

§14: The Question of the Self runs into the second question, “am I being authentic to myself?” The entire critique that there is no authentic self runs into the problem that there is this other self, deep self-understanding that the non-self still pursues. If Lacan and company decide to circle around incompleteness forever, this is fine, but I will not be doing this. I will look on concepts to expand.

§15: Am I inline with a natural joy which I know is possible? The simplicity and the ability to dialectically refute my question itself has nothing to do with asking it, except maybe the egoic desire to silence that line of inquiry. In that pursuit, in the most authentic engagement with philosophy and psychology possible, I call to an overcoming of psychology and an engagement with the ideas of what is natural and authentic as a measure running in the background of all dialectics.