This one was inspired by my recent tidy-up of the blog followers. The majority of them (past and present ones) are mostly ‘one topic’ endeavors. This got me thinking about the gallimaufry that is my blog. Spo

My first psychoanalysis was done via the classic-Freudian model of free association, which means you basically start talking and what needs to come up will do so in time. It wasn’t difficult to talk about whatever flits about in my conscious to a captive audience. Indeed it was somewhat fun: for once I was doing the talking while someone else did the listening. This didn’t go well as my unconscious would not co-operate to release its dark and repressed secrets to my analyst, Dr. Bernstein. The unconscious lay dormant mum and allowed my conscious to drone on and on about mundane matters until Dr. Bernstein became nonplussed and accused me of ‘resistance” which is a catch-all term for not giving the analyst what he wants you do say. *

I sometimes think of this when writing this blog. I start with a blank page (and mind) and wait for The Muses (or someone like them) to inchoate my thoughts towards a theme and subsequent essay. What happens of course is a hodgepodge of various entries, ranging from dribble to cosmic matters like Life, The Universe, and Rats at Tewkesbury. Most blogs (the ones I read) are consistent in their contents. In contrast, mine looks unfocused, almost incoherent, like a James Joyce novel minus its charms. My inner-Dr. Bernstein is waiting for me to settle down but he is hardly in charge. Instead, I have the You-know-what, who, to their credit, doesn’t give tuppence what I write so long as it generates comments and Danegeld.

I am wary of the Dr. Bernsteins of the world, who tell you how to do things right and if you don’t it’s a sign of resistance. At the beginning of my analysis, I assumed he was right and I was wrong. Eventually I connected the dots: my round-shaped peg mentality (and being) were only ‘wrong’ as I was trying to become ‘more square’ for the sake of “The Square Ones”. Dr. James, who was as ’round’ as I was, happily helped me out of that way of thinking.**

There are approximately eighteen categories of topics at Spo-reflections and I never know which one gets the latest entry. I suspect thems looking for a square-meal (as it were) don’t read me. Rather, it’s The Round-Ones who pop by and read me with relish – or so I hope.

*I now know he wasn’t wrong. At some level my unconscious (Personal and Universal) didn’t trust this man to hear things right; he would turn everything into an Oedipal Complex. They got me out of there and to Dr. James, a Jungian, where both types heaved a huge sigh of relief and exploded upwards like a piece of machinery that has been given one ounce of pressure too much. Psyche is fascinating.

**Freudian psychology tends to reductivism: nebulous neurosis are distilled down to a straight-forward issue or event. Jungians generally go in the opposite direction: expansive imagination into the archetypes, and you get to play Dungeons and Dragons.