Pojman's examples of our "absurd" life

As Pojman explained the components of existentialism, he offered a very good paragraph for discussion. He was adding to the example Camus cited in explaining our "absurd" life.  Camus compared the human existence to that of Sisyphus in Greek mythology; as "tedious, boring, meaningless, and full of never-ending toil."  Pojman offers his own example which he believed to be consistent with the ideology outlined by existentialism.  He believed that the lifestyle of a person who works a mundane job 5x a week exemplified the absurd life.  He called them "mindless" and condemned to perpetuate the cycle due to the "grim need to earn a livelihood".  I wondered, does this description only apply to those who are financially dependent on the absurd life? What if one is economically stable and chooses to operate in this fashion- strictly for structure in their daily practices?  Are the questions (or variables) of this scenario contradictory to the concise example Camus gave? Is the difference too distinct to say that Pojman's example contributes to a greater understanding of the absurd life?

Freud, Again.

I cannot help but ponder the notion that Freud had a personal sentiment that male superiority not only existed, but is the catalyst for all human nature.  I may be completely misdirected with my impression, however, I recognized the undeniable fact that Freud cites the creation of women and God after man.  His passage regarding womens' initial psyche centralized on "penis envy" and rejection of their personal genitalia/feminitiy was rather chauvinistic.  To make inferences of an entire gender, encompassing ALL women, that their innate desires are to be a man and when they are unable and accept this reality, spend their lives looking up to the image of man.  Was Freud simply attempting to explain the origins of the human race, that women were the "offspring" or deviation from the originator (man).  Or did he operate that men were superior and determined the majority of social and emotional interactions?  Did you not find this to be a component in his argument at all, am I over analyzing his content and making false evaluations?

Continuing Freud- More Personal/Biased/Judgemental Views of Mine

I had one more issue I wanted to evaluate in regard to Pansexuality: Are "sexual revolutions" just an acknowledgment of a person's innate design? How is a woman's psychology generated on the premise that sexuality determines her actions, and furthermore how much of her psychological stability is truly affected by restrictions to her sexual freedom from cultural influences?  I read in a sociology paper once that by biological design women are restricted in number of sexual partners due to the length of gestation and lactation; whereas men are naturally more able to procreate rather quickly.  The bonds females form with their offspring is deeper due to the length, requirements, and experiences of pregnancy and men, while the understand a responsibility to their offspring cannot identify to the same degree with their child.  I have heard men say "I want to spread my seed" "Have a lot of babies", etc.  Have you ever heard a woman say "I want to have as many children as I physically can with as many men as I can"? Certainly not.  Some people do ascribe to this lifestyle, but I am not sure it is a result of their conscious decision, maybe just a compromise in their morals or promiscuous lifestyle. (I apologize for being judgmental, I have a daughter and have a very strong relationship with her father that we both intend to continue throughout our lives; based on our mutual belief that a strong family structure is crucial to human development and well being) I cannot understand men or women who procreate with multiple people- their actions seems reckless without any consideration for the impact it will have on the lives they create. Another issue that could be analyzed is polygamy.  What are your feelings about the polygamist lifestyle in regards to physical, mental, and emotional stability of the parties involved? (including the man, the women, and the offspring).

Freud's Pansexuality

I am sure this concept outlined in Freud's theory of human nature has received an overwhelming amount of attention. (It was the first topic of class discussion today) I am referring to Pansexuality- the belief that everything in life is caused by our sexual instincts.  There is an undeniable presence in modern culture of sexual innuendos, images, and blatant depictions that cause a physical and mental arousal (arousal can be dually defined in this statement) that play on our overt and suppressed desires.  I have heard arguments that attempt to explain the cause of war; asserting and securing ones masculinity. Furthermore, guns stand as phallic symbols and when used in conjunction with the source of conflict (preserving masculinity and enacting dominance) serve as a visual representation of a man holding his penis.
What are the indications that relate to historical examples? There are cave drawings and Greek statues that blatantly refer to sexual matters.   Can we then say that the genesis of man is due to sexual contact and that we exist to perpetuate the cycle and that all other aspects of life are generated by our basic needs?

How does the concept of Pansexuality relate to those select few who have renounced sexual encounters all together- to focus on intellectual or relational strength as opposed to coital measures?

Response To Devin's Post "Fear of Marxism"

I am responding to Devin Philbrick's post "Fear of Marxism" where he examines the origins of cultural fear in Karl Marx's doctrines. I will only offer my short opinion; as I feel inferior in argument to you.  I am strictly offering my opinion based on my personal experience, and while I will apply the overall impression to the masses I do not defend my convictions to others.  When I was growing up "Marxism" was always used with a derogatory connotation.  As a child my assimilation into the ideas of Marxism only went as far as the historical relation to the Soviet Union.  As far as opposition to his distinct ideals; I would say it is naivety as a result of cultural fear imparted on us at a young age. (whether intentional or unintentional I am not apt to say).  It is always easier to accept a simple concept (such as Marxism = Soviet Union/Communism/Negativity) as opposed to truly exploring what  aspects of the concept lead the group to their practices (as no person or enterprise fully adheres to any set concept)

Another Class-Influenced Thought Experiment

My narrative on the next class discussion will incorporate a more social foundation, one constructed on experiencing Western customs and not necessarily grounded on historical or biblical accuracy.  We discussed consumerism and its role in inhibiting change over time.  This forced me to examine our cultural practices regarding certain holiday celebrations.  Regarding Christmas and Easter, both religiously based concepts, they have both transformed into an industry based on consumerism- separate (for the masses at least) from adherence to religious parameters.  The industry that Christmas has created will only expand or grow exponentially in our culture due to consumerism.  Consumerism has even pervaded the minute religious facets that still remain in these practices.  There are products produced with depictions of religious figures, which appeal to the few that respect the holidays origin- and compel them to purchase the item in a demonstration of their support.  A more obscure example is the production of Christmas flowers (poinsettias).  As with all other industry led production; the seasonal availability of certain items are regulated to maximize profit.  The flowers are mass produced during the corresponding occasion with the intent to generate excessive monetary return.  Easter is also commercially driven; I honestly cannot begin to cite all the examples of the perversion that Western society has imposed with commercialism and consumerism on all aspects of personal conviction or practice.  The statement is true- consumerism does inhibit change over time.  How are we to develop or transform our culture if we are constantly fed products that are marketed to appeal to us, and are determined by an industry not by individual preference.

Influenced by Class Discussion Relating to Marxism

Admittedly, I am unsure of the exact relation of this next concept to Marxism. We touched on the concept of using process to improve yourself (such as forcing yourself to smile), but where it falls in relation to category of this concept is unclear.  I do want to explore the power of self enterprise in changing ones current circumstance.  A few questions are raised when I consider the capabilities of such a practice; Is the impact of psychological betterment universal to all humans? What contributory factors impact the capacity for said betterment? (wealth, health, any variation regarding sex, ethnicity) Also where does modern medicine for depression or anxiety exist in this idea?  Furthermore- explore the basis and practice for the placebo effect. Is using psychology a personally motivated placebo? Is a placebo founded on being unaware of the lack of assistance? 
There does seem to be one instance in which the will to increase emotional or physical well being is successful.  Through the power of prayer many find that their demeanor is affected and they have an improved outlook.  Is this due to the "spiritual healers", God, pastors, preachers, televangelists? Or are we solely responsible for taking outside influences and internalizing them to our own betterment?