I really recommend reading "On Aggression" by Konrad Lorenz ( Nobel Prize winner) I think you would seriously rethink what you wrote. Aggression has nothing to do with homo-eroticism.

No rethinking mate, I'm of freudian/lacanian school, it's all about language, the subconscious/unconscious (unbewusste), the death drive, enjoyment (juissance), phantasm, repetition, transference ... Lorenz's starting point is all false, he's applying animal life to humans and drawing parallels, which is - pardon my french - bull. Everything Lorenz is saying is secondary. In short: he doesn't explain where aggression stems from, just how we humans use it or channel it. He's masking the true nature of things. Is he unable to see it or he doesn't want to I don't know and at the end it doesn't matter.

My point: homoerotic component is present in EVERY male community. For some men that is unthinkable, they can't come to terms with that fact and they deny it, supress it and are willing to go far in order to not be associated with "the natural gayness" of their community. So they want to prove over and over again they are not gay, but no one said they were in the first place, just that homoeroticism is inscribed in the structure of the community. Instead of seeing that they rather fantasize about gay men as sissies, girlie-men, submissive spineless bitches and so forth, and the only conclusion that comes natural to them is that if they act aggressively they will be regarded as true men and no one will regard them as gay. Well tough luck.

Excession of aggression (like burning down villages with helpless women and children in them) is nothing but another attempt to prove to themselves they are true - not gay - men. Raping women is again an attempt to prove that: "look, I'm consuming a heterosexual relationship, I'm not gay." The disgust they feel towards that particular woman remains unreflected, as does the faggoty cheering of their buddies waiting for their turn. Their attempts fail precisely because all that drives them is infact "the gay". In it's negative form, true, but gay nonetheless: they want to prove they are NOT gay. And the proper question is: if you are not gay, why the need to prove it over and over again? It's because deep inside they know it all too well. The movie American beauty nailed that perfectly. That colonel (I mean c'mon, even coincidences are speaking for it!) really had bad luck with Spacey. Who knows, if he (colonel) could succesfully consume that particular relationship, maybe there'd be hope for him.

I really recommend reading "On Aggression" by Konrad Lorenz ( Nobel Prize winner) I think you would seriously rethink what you wrote. Aggression has nothing to do with homo-eroticism.

No rethinking mate, I'm of freudian/lacanian school, it's all about language, the subconscious/unconscious (unbewusste), the death drive, enjoyment (juissance), phantasm, repetition, transference ... Lorenz's starting point is all false, he's applying animal life to humans and drawing parallels, which is - pardon my french - bull. Everything Lorenz is saying is secondary. In short: he doesn't explain where aggression stems from, just how we humans use it or channel it. He's masking the true nature of things. Is he unable to see it or he doesn't want to I don't know and at the end it doesn't matter.

My point: homoerotic component is present in EVERY male community. For some men that is unthinkable, they can't come to terms with that fact and they deny it, supress it and are willing to go far in order to not be associated with "the natural gayness" of their community. So they want to prove over and over again they are not gay, but no one said they were in the first place, just that homoeroticism is inscribed in the structure of the community. Instead of seeing that they rather fantasize about gay men as sissies, girlie-men, submissive spineless bitches and so forth, and the only conclusion that comes natural to them is that if they act aggressively they will be regarded as true men and no one will regard them as gay. Well tough luck.

Excession of aggression (like burning down villages with helpless women and children in them) is nothing but another attempt to prove to themselves they are true - not gay - men. Raping women is again an attempt to prove that: "look, I'm consuming a heterosexual relationship, I'm not gay." The disgust they feel towards that particular woman remains unreflected, as does the faggoty cheering of their buddies waiting for their turn. Their attempts fail precisely because all that drives them is infact "the gay". In it's negative form, true, but gay nonetheless: they want to prove they are NOT gay. And the proper question is: if you are not gay, why the need to prove it over and over again? It's because deep inside they know it all too well. The movie American beauty nailed that perfectly. That colonel (I mean c'mon, even coincidences are speaking for it!) really had bad luck with Spacey. Who knows, if he (colonel) could succesfully consume that particular relationship, maybe there'd be hope for him.

Damn goat that some smart shit!!! now, how to stupid it up a bit?

Aggression is gay.

YAY!

No rethinking mate, I'm of freudian/lacanian school, it's all about language, the subconscious/unconscious (unbewusste), the death drive, enjoyment (juissance), phantasm, repetition, transference ... Lorenz's starting point is all false, he's applying animal life to humans and drawing parallels, which is - pardon my french - bull. Everything Lorenz is saying is secondary. In short: he doesn't explain where aggression stems from, just how we humans use it or channel it. He's masking the true nature of things. Is he unable to see it or he doesn't want to I don't know and at the end it doesn't matter.

Actually he tries to show its an ihnerant instinct or moving force in all aspecies, including humans. I guess if you dont believe in evolution, you can throw out his work as hogwash, but its hard to discount it otherwise. Unless you feel the Human specie has a new, super aggression, developed on its own in more recent time?

AS far as him explaining where aggression stems from, this he actually does. Its a survival "instinct". In the same manner as sexual drive, hunger, etc. Iguess if you dont believe that premise, then yes you can again throw it out the window as hogwash.

"it's all about language, the subconscious/unconscious (unbewusste), the death drive, enjoyment (juissance), phantasm, repetition, transference" I dont get what any of this has to do with aggression?

PS> goat , if you did read the book, which I am thinking you did from how you speak so strongly on it , he does refer to freud fairly often, in a good light, the "death wish,, etc. as well.

however he does rail Kant quite a bit.

The movie American beauty nailed that perfectly. That colonel (I mean c'mon, even coincidences are speaking for it!) really had bad luck with Spacey. Who knows, if he (colonel) could succesfully consume that particular relationship, maybe there'd be hope for him.

HAHAHAHA COLON el thats cute.

The modern usage of the word colonel began in the late sixteenth century, when companies were first formed into larger regiments or columns (colonne in Italian) under the leadership of a colonnello. (In modern English, the word is pronounced similarly to kernel as a result of having entered the language from Middle French in two competing forms, coronel and colonel. The more etymological colonel was favored in literary works and eventually became the standard spelling despite losing the pronunciation war to the dissimilated coronel.)

I know you were just kidding there but had to make certain that ontehers knew you shouldnt be taken too seriously on this thread!

Actually he tries to show its an ihnerant instinct or moving force in all aspecies, including humans. I guess if you dont believe in evolution, you can throw out his work as hogwash, but its hard to discount it otherwise. Unless you feel the Human specie has a new, super aggression, developed on its own in more recent time?

AS far as him explaining where aggression stems from, this he actually does. Its a survival "instinct". In the same manner as sexual drive, hunger, etc. Iguess if you dont believe that premise, then yes you can again throw it out the window as hogwash.

Humans do not have instincts. We have subconscious drives that form through language, the subconscious itself is structured like a language, basically: humans are completely imbued with language, are the subjects of language. Whatever survived from the era of instincts, is now completely overriden.

Yes, I believe human aggression is of other kind. It has nothing to do with survival and everything with lashing out. Basic ingredients are: language, ego, desire, aggression. Humans are different from animals in the way we can deal with things, we can talk it through. When one desires something and cannot justify it before the community of fellow humans, in order to fullfill his desire he must turn to aggression. From the standpoint of "human" as the subject of language, aggression is a way of admitting the defeat but not accepting it. Having it your way nevertheless. It's the same with defensive aggression: if you cannot reason with the aggressor, if he's after you no matter what, what happens is you fail in language, there's no medium between the two of you, and any aggression that comes out of you is the result of that failure, not some survival instinct. If you react immediately with aggression, it's also lashing out because it is clear that that attack is just what you needed, what you've been waiting for to let go. So basically, any aggression comes from within, is not "just a reaction", but an action in itself. Aggression is the failure of human in the human. But since that failure is unavoidable, one could say "you only become a human when you fail as a human", we need aggression, we need to lash out, so we construct rituals that allow us just that.

"it's all about language, the subconscious/unconscious (unbewusste), the death drive, enjoyment (juissance), phantasm, repetition, transference" I dont get what any of this has to do with aggression?

Language forms the subconscious which forms the death drive, around which the subject structures his enjoyment, then all this screens as a phantasm (or fantasy), which is the core of subjectivity, which accounts for repetition (of our mistakes and basically everything we do). Transference is about interpersonal relations, it's the imaginative figure for whose gaze you do things that you think that imaginative figure would like you to do. Now, if all this would run smoothly, there'd be no aggression, there'd be no need for aggression. But it can't run smoothly, so aggression is just one way of dealing with problems.

*Claps*