We have seen that the Oedipus complex is typical of your Western society, which arises from how the family is presented, from the roles that within it are usually attributed to father and mother and that gives rise to problems in the child, as it projects itself towards the parents.
He takes from his parents what he (when he tries to take) thinks right, and later - when he realizes that some of the things he had taken from his parents were not as "beautiful" as he thought - in that moment there is the reaction negative on his part, which translates into the behaviors that so often some of you may observe in your children, which is due to the disappointment not so much towards the parent (even if the individual does not realize it and tends to attribute the blame to the parent) as the disappointment towards himself and towards the fact of not having been able to be objective towards the parent and therefore having taken from him those same defects that he attributes to the parent.
Agree? This was more or less, very succinctly, what we had said up to this point. This is the negative aspect of the Oedipus complex, which, moreover (we had said), does not belong to other types of society.
Then there is the positive aspect, which is to make the embodied individual shift his attention out of his own Io and then you begin to realize that there are other people, with other needs, with other feelings, with other needs, with which he has to deal and from whom he can "take" something; because you remember that the individual turns to others to take, initially, in this shift of the Oedipus complex from inside the family to the outside, right?
This is the positive aspect, because turning towards others certainly means expanding the possibilities of experience, expanding the possibility of understanding, evolving, expanding one's own feel.
But, as we had talked up to this point, it seemed to some of my friends "on this side of the veil" that the false impression could arise of giving a bad image, more than anything else, of the parents. Remember the famous tale of Ananda, that so had struck you? Certainly parents have, as we said, a great responsibility, that of making sure that their children see the right things in them, they know what are the right things to choose, to imitate, to make their own in order to build a better self.
However, this must not end up blaming the parents because the responsibility - at least this type of responsibility - ceases when the child has grown up and has the tools to understand what his mistakes have been, to be able to accept them.
At that moment the traces of the Oedipus complex within the child all become his responsibility as the Akasic body is interlocked (around the twenty-first year of age, ed), he possesses the tools to understand what he must modify in himself and, if he fails to do so, it is no longer the responsibility of the parent, who is what he is, but his responsibility that he wants to continue to be what comes from that parent.
Do you agree?
D - Parents have the task of channeling their children in the directions they succeed, but the channels are already made.
No doubt. The children, on the other hand, have the responsibility of getting to the point of accepting this channeling, this conditioning of the parents, but of then being able to understand when it is time to change the channel, if they believe that the channel is not the right one for them. them, beyond what parents may think.
How many young people eventually get to take drugs, or to commit something that is not exactly right, simply to go against the addresses, what they want, the wishes of their parents!
Unfortunately, there are many cases. And, if on the one hand there may have been the responsibility of the parents for not having been able to offer the channel in the right ways, I repeat: there is also the responsibility on the part of the children not to be able to choose the right channel themselves, but to find much easier to blame others without getting out of the mistakes they make or have made.
D - It is a selection between the pieces that are yours and those that do not belong to you, so at some point this identification mechanism must end.
No doubt. The child must always be aware and grateful, after all, that he is a child and that he has parents, but he must also become a unique individual in himself, who in turn - remember - will most likely have to be a parent, and then learn to realize his dynamics, as his children will have the same problems and he will have to be the one, this time, not to make the same mistakes.
D - So this explains why in an apparently or even rightly valid educational process, children come out with deviations.
No doubt.
D - Sometimes there are family situations in which one does not know well… well, you spoke of responsibility which is the child who no longer owes, etc .; however, there are cases in which, rather than responsibility, one must speak of a karmic question, or something else; blocks can be created in children due to heavy situations experienced in the family.
At this point I have a moment of confusion because I do not see the educational side of the parent towards the child and I do not see how, at a certain point, a child can choose a type of behavior if these facts have determined blocks, repercussions even at the soul level.
It is a bit difficult to give a general answer to a question of this type, as the case you raise may also be frequent, then, in the end, perhaps smaller or larger depending on the situation, but a genesis, the “whys”, the behaviors of the people involved are practically always different from each other, so it is the typical case in which I should speak in particular about a situation, rather than in general.
Because if we wanted to speak in general the only thing I could tell you is that, evidently, those people needed for evolutionary necessity, for a karma, for a previous non-understanding, to be faced with that difficult situation, which makes things really complex for all the people involved, and who, probably, apparently, do not understand what is happening and cannot get out of this difficult situation, but that in the next life they will draw the sums and, certainly, they will have obtained something more, that understanding which they now seem not to have. But - I repeat - it would be generic talk, which I don't know how acceptable it can be in the end.
D - In this regard, the intervention of a psychotherapist has an immediate value and a value also in the group and then on theevolution potential?
The psychotherapist can undoubtedly have a value if (as we already said some time ago) in the meantime he is a correct person (and there are not many correct ones around), if he truly loves his job and is able to communicate this love to the people he frequents , this passion for his work, and mainly if the people who put themselves in his hands are convinced that what he is doing can be useful. Because the psychotherapist - as well as the psychoanalyst, on the other hand - can absolutely do nothing other than show the ways to the individual, but he must then be the individual to follow them. Therefore it is possible to do only what the individual allows them to do.
It is a bit the same as what happens in these meetings: many times we have been told "But why don't you do this or that for us?", But we can, in reality, only do what "you "Let us do it!
We could also try (in theory) to make you all become saints but, if you don't want to become one, you will never become one, whatever we can do!
We could - I don't know - make you materialize a Jesus Christ here, at the center of this meeting, to convince you, but if you do not want to convince yourself even this will never be able to convince you!
You'll always find a way to say, "That was a trick." And the same happens with regard to psychotherapy: the psychotherapist, if he is a conscientious psychotherapist, he can do a lot, he can help the individual a lot, but only if the individual allows him to help him; as it can only be the individual who understands what he needs.
Readings for the interior: every day, a short spiritual reading of the Ifior Circle and of the Florence 77 Circle, on Whatsapp.
(Read only, cannot comment) To subscribe
D - So it is possible to remove these events that happened in a family past and ...
More than removing them, I would say that it would be much better to understand them, to come to accept them. Removing them would only push back all the drives, the pains, the sufferings, which would then work inside causing psychosomatic symptoms or problems of various kinds.
Instead, it would be much better to thoroughly examine these problems, these blocks, to arrive at understanding not only one's own reasons but also the reasons of others; since, however bad one may be in behaving, even this bad being has its own why within it, then, in the end. There is no one (as it used to be said) bad by nature. Badness is simply not understanding something.
D - Well, I was just wondering if the psychotherapist's function can be catalytic in this case.
It can be catalytic, it could be, no doubt.
D - How much also the meeting with anyone else, who is not a psychotherapist. Can the catalyst be anyone?
It might, but it might not even need a catalyst. It is not indispensable, but it can be one of the means made available and that can be found in these apparently difficult cases.
D - Earlier you talked about the connection of the Akasic body and about this hypothetical child who has the complex towards his parents. I wanted to ask you if it could be said that the child should, at some point, since he has achieved the connection with his Akasic body, could, has the means, to be able to understand that the parents have been but a tool for them to emerge. in him certain problems, which will perhaps be the main theme of his life. And this? He should see in the parents not so much the external cause, but rather the function they had in bringing his problem to the surface.
I would say even more: he should see not so much the external cause (which are the parents) as the internal cause which is his, and it would be much better.
D - In fact, I meant so. That we must realize that they were the instrument for everything to unfold, for "history" to unfold, and therefore it is not that he is suffering, he is a victim of this situation.
Let's say that the parent may have triggered the situation, but the one who has traveled through it is he… Or her, of course. I would not like to be accused of machismo!
Q - Last time you said that you would also talk about the role of the brothers, in the Oedipus complex.
Yes, but you are too tired; then we leave it to you for the next time, hoping that you will arrive a little more concentrated, a little more prepared; maybe, possibly, also hoping to have the tools a little more available, a little less tired.
There would also be another curious question, for next time: if I told you,... I gave you a whole nice speech and told you "The Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury, the Moon, the Sun, are planets" you , creatures, would you think that I have gone mad or would you find another answer? Scifo
Privacy policy of this site to consult before commenting,
or subscribe to feeds.
What happens, accesses for us, is functional to our learning. In parental relationships this is even more evidently true, because these constitute the paths that will dominate part of our existence. The transition from victim to perpetrator is also an understanding of the functional role of family relationships.
Thank you.