Welcome to the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis. The lecture you are about to listen to was created by Associate Professor Doris McIlwain. This course has been made publicly available, but was recorded for a live student audience. Please enjoy. Lecture 2. Drives and Affects This lecture talks about drives and as such talks about sex. Listener discretion is advised. What today's lecture emphasises is our continuity with other species, animals like us. And that's a sort of foundational assumption that psychoanalysis makes, that we're animals, basically. And that we have a few add-ons that make us behave in ways that are slightly different from animals in certain contexts. And the most notable difference is our capacity for language. And so language is going to be interwoven towards the end of today's lecture. Okay. So one of the major assumptions about psychoanalysis is that cognition is only a very small part of the story. And most of the rest of psychology, when they talk about cognitive processes, they assume that that's the major thing that you really need to focus on. And if you focus on that, you're focusing on the major thing. Well, psychoanalysis thinks that your cognition, like your perception, is basically thrown around by your bodily urges. And that you are not just a knower. In other words, it's not just you dispassionately and scientifically coming to know a fact about an external state of affairs in the world. For psychoanalysis, it's suggesting that that knowledge seeking or that coming to know something about the world is done by a little engine, a very hot little bodily engine that is either a drive or an affect. In other words, policy-neutral knowledge is an impossibility because the entity, the sub-personal entity that's doing the knowing is motivated. In fact, it is in itself a motivational engine. Now, that's a very weird thing to think. And yet, there's actually a fair degree of evidence that it's almost impossible to know something without having a feeling about it or having even a moral attitude to it. So psychoanalysis says we're not just knowers. We're also wanters. And in fact, it's our wanting that makes us come to know things about the world. When you start to read in this area, as I've been reading for a long time, you realize that that word wanting, yes, it suggests hot cognition. It suggests motivated, partial, invested forms of cognition. But how on earth do you make sense of all of these words that people use for wanting? And this is just a few. People talk about drives, motives, goals, and needs, right? Then they talk about affects, emotions, and feelings. Then they talk about schemas and scripts and attachment styles. Now, all of those component words have got something hot at their core. In other words, even a schema, which is a knowledge structure, that's a sort of shorthand for finding your way around in the world. Like you've got a schema for going to a restaurant. You've got a schema for what it's like when you break up with a lover. Okay. But there's something, you know, the glue to that schema, what holds the structure together, is hot and motivated and affective. And attachment styles are the same. Attachment styles, how can I be safe? What do I feel when I'm abandoned? How can I be safe? What do I feel when I'm abandoned? So there's a lot to do with emotions sort of involved in those words. So what I want to sort of say is that for me, drives are things that push you, and they're usually bodily engines. Motives can be either explicit. I really like to get on with people, okay? Or they can be implicit. I feel powerful when I get on with people. That would be an implicit need for power that would be emotive. A goal is something that if I ask you about, you could readily tell me why you're at uni. You could tell me roughly what your goal is. What needs of yours are being met by being at uni? You'd probably go a bit blurrier and there'd be a slightly longer list. Because needs are not necessarily drives. You can have needs for variety, needs to brush your hair, you know, et cetera, which are not actually embodied needs. But there's a whole array of different needs. Now, affects, emotions, and feelings, I'm going to be going into detail. So I'll talk about that in a second. And schema, scripts, and attachment styles, we get to later in the course. But I just want to signal for you that I think that these things end up going into quite different clusters and different groups. And that's what I would like you to pay attention to, too. The one thing that makes me really sad in the literature is when you get a real hot shot psychologist who's absolutely in the emotion area. And they go, well, lots of people, you know, distinguish affects, emotions, and feelings. And some people do it in one way and some people do it in another way. But I'm just going to use them interchangeably. I go off and weep quietly for a few minutes when I see that. It's like, no, that's never going to sort out the problem if you just do that. Okay. So I'm going to really emphasize two groups today, basically, drives and affects. But to honor the fact of the complexity of the arena in which I'm functioning, I'm going to have to tell you about emotions and feelings to sort of clarify all of that. The reason that I love psychoanalysis, though, is because it really does take embodiment seriously. Like, it takes it so seriously that it's almost kitsch. It thinks that everything can be traced back to the body, basically. And so drives are bodily. You're born with them. They make you do stuff. That's exactly what they do. They drive you to do stuff. They drive you to bump into the world to find the things that you need. But what's interesting is that, yes, they're bodily, but you experience them mentally. Okay? You experience them mentally. Now, does that mean that body and mind are separate? Not for Freud. The mind is just how you come to know what's happening in the body. They're one and the same for him. Every mental event has a physical event. So he's absolutely not dualistic. He doesn't think there's separate mind stuff and separate body stuff. He thinks that they're one and the same thing. And I think that's pretty cool. But he says that when we experience our drives, they're experienced as a demand for work. It's like, oh, I'm thirsty. I've got to go and get a drink. You know, duh. Yeah? And you might hallucinate for a while. Oh, you know, I've got sexual desire. I'll fantasize. But that doesn't really satisfy completely. And so ultimately, you've got to go out and find something in the world that enables you to have what's called a consummate reaction that makes the drive go quiet on you again. And I was in the chemist the other day because somebody in my family had a pretty serious illness in January. And I had to get these painkiller tablets. And I saw this absolutely cool sign in the chemist. And it was, if you're experiencing headaches on a daily basis, it may be that you're dehydrated. The signs of dehydration are a dry mouth. You know, and it was kind of like educating the public as to what the signs of thirst might be. And I realized that it's not a foregone conclusion that we can recognize our drives. We sometimes don't know that we're thirsty, et cetera. And so you have to have these rules like drink a liter of water, et cetera, because we can become very out of tune with this demand on the mind for work. And we can misinterpret the signals of drives. And there's all sorts of reasons for that, which I'll tell you about. Ad nauseum, of course. Okay, we misrecognize our drives very, very readily. We can think we're hungry when we're sad. We can think we're hungry when we've got sexual desire. We can think we've got sexual desire when we're furious and aggressive. Okay, and there's all sorts of reasons for that. But the thing about drives is if I touch the stove and my hand feels pain, I can take flight. My hand can take flight from that pain. But with a drive, there's nowhere to run because it's your body. And so if it's stimulating you to do something or if it's causing you pain by clashing with your morality or your idealized view of yourself, if you feel like decking someone and you have an idealized vision of yourself as someone who never feels anger, that's going to cause you pain. Because this impulse, which is incredibly bodily and Darwinian, is going to be conflicting with the cherished view of yourself. And that's a situation of mental pain or psychic pain, as Freud calls it. So flight is to no avail. So what are you going to do? Well, you find ways of defending against your drives. If you can't satisfy them by direct action, you've got to do something to soothe them. If you can't soothe them, you at the very least have to become unaware that they're making a certain kind of demand on you. And that's what the defense mechanisms are. It's ways of neutralizing the drives because you can't either directly act upon them in the world or soothe them. Okay. And there's lots of reasons why you can't soothe them sometimes in life, which I'll also speak about. Okay. So definitions. We'll stick with Freud for this one. It gets very complicated later, but I love this definition of whose. It's a real mouthful, so I'm just going to say it like a real mouthful, and then I'm going to break it down. So he calls it a psychical representative of an endosomatic, continuously flowing source of stimulation. Okay. Let's break it down. A psychical representative. Okay. We experience it as something mental. We experience it as something psychological. It's physical. Say, let's say with hunger, my glucose levels are dropping. Right? That's a very physical thing. My stomach is rumbling. Yeah? But that's not how I experience it. I just think, oh, gee, I'm hungry. Okay. But it's a psychical representative, like an idea or a thought. But it's something, it's a representative of something that's actually within your body, endo, within somatic your body. Hence, psychosomatic. So it's the psychical representative of something endosomatic. It's continuously flowing. So that's the difficulty with drives. They never stop. If your hunger's satisfied, your thirst can be there, and your sex is just about always there, you know, in one way or another. And it's a constant source of stimulation. They say in French that which is constant is desire. Now, desire is a little bit different from drives, but we'll get there. But it means that there's never real stillness, calm, and an absence of want within us. There's always something going on, which is why it can be quite noisy and chattery to be in our minds. Okay, there's four attributes of the drive, according to Freud, and you're going to need this in your tutorials. But also the reason it matters is not just because I like to test you on things like this, but it's because you've really got to know the difference between these four attributes, because some of them are flexible and some of them are not. And some of them are flexible for some drives and are not flexible for other drives. And that really, really matters. Okay? So the aim of all of the drives, and I know I haven't told you how many there are I'm getting there, but the aim of all of the drives is tension reduction. You don't want to be feeling the state of arousal and impetus and impulse. Okay? So you want to calm it down somehow. So the aim is tension reduction. And that's achieved by a consummate reaction. Okay? You've got to do something. You've got to either eat something, drink something, have sex, run away from pain, etc. The object is the external part of the world or your own body, the means by which satisfaction is gained. So that's what's so nifty about drives is that they make me want to know something about the world. In other words, they're intentional. This is philosophical speech in a sense for making you relate in some mental way to some object in the world. So drives accidentally make me know something. They cognize. They make me know things about the world. They make me find objects. And the object is the most variable of the sex drive. But it's not all that variable for the hunger drive. Okay? We can try sort of chewing candle wax and coal and biting our fingernails and all that kind of stuff. But ultimately, you know, it's got to be food, basically. But the object is the thing that's free to vary. So Freud said in his earliest writings, you never define a drive by its object because that's the thing that can really vary and shift and change. You always define a drive by its bodily source. Okay, so pressure. This is the sort of frontier concept between sort of mind and body, if you like. Because, you know, this is possibly the most variable thing, too. Like, depending on how thirsty you are, you'll have a certain strength of the drive. Are you going to run to the tap? You know, or are you going to sort of wander and, oh, it doesn't matter if I don't get a drink for a couple of hours? It's a felt need. It's a sense of urgency that you have. And Freud sometimes talks about that, confusingly enough for me, as an affect of urgency. Which is not so helpful because I want to define affects in other ways. But that's just a signal to you that Freud talks about affects in a way that's different from the way I'm going to be using it in the course. So the pressure isn't an idea. Like, it isn't a thought. You can sense it. You've got a sense that it's present in your body. But it's not like a thought. It's just something that you know, you know, that you can experience in a way. And I think one of my friends was saying there's this concept called hangry. When you're so hungry that you get angry. Have you heard of that? Yeah? Yeah? Okay. And so the source of the drives in the body. Okay, pre-1910. Last week I told you that, you know, Freud changed his ideas a lot. And that this is what's really important from my point of view is the pre-1910 position. Because he said that there were a number of instincts that ensured the survival of you as specific unique organism. Hunger, thirst, pain avoidance, temperature regulation. The sex instincts are what guarantees the survival of the species. And to be really honest, Freud is quite sort of pessimistic when he talks about this. He says basically all that the sex instinct wants to ensure is the survival of the germ plasm, basically. And you are just the carrier of the germ plasm. Okay? And so from an evolutionary perspective, from sexual instincts point of view, there's no real concern whether you die in the process. Okay? So sex is just like wanting sex, basically. If it means that you get killed in the process, sexuality doesn't care. Because so long as you've managed successfully to mate before you do die, the germ plasm has carried on. Okay? Now, from the individual's point of view, that's a catastrophe. Like that's a high price for a moment's bliss. Okay? So the ego instincts try to sort of say, no, no, no, no, don't do that. You know, they try. There's some conflict within you, in a sense, between these two broad groupings. Because one set of instincts is only hell-bent on reproducing the germ plasm. And the other bunch are much more concerned about you as unique individual. Now, I'm going to talk to you a fair bit about this later on, but I'm not going to go into it in great detail today. I have got Freud's essay with Three Instincts on Sexuality up online already. It's well worth reading if you want to see this sort of true, old-fashioned, disgust your mother Freud. You know, he's absolutely telling you like it is. Like this is embodied philosophy like you will really experience anywhere else. And some contemporary psychoanalysts get quite offended by just how much detail he goes into here. His definition of pleasure is not for the faint-hearted. Okay? It's all about, you know, the stimulation of the mucous membrane by sort of objects going into various orifices and things like this. And it's like rhythmic stimulation. And, you know, it's really quite full on. But it's fantastic because it's so animal, you know. And you realize that it's not the case that we are born with a mouth and then at two years old we get an anus and then at four years old we get a penis or a clitoris. It's not like that at all. It's more like this social beam of our parents' concern and attention is initially all about, you know, I'm just worried about you as baby getting fat enough so that you're going to survive. Later on I'll worry about toilet training. Later on I'll worry about the fact that you masturbate in front of auntie, you know. It's like, you know, we'll just work on one thing at a time kind of thing. So it reads like stages that you progress through as if there's some kind of epigenetic unfolding of something biological within you. Look, it's sort of like that. You actually can't control your animal sphincter until about, you know, 18 months. So if your mother or father's trying to toilet train you before that, forget it. It's not going to happen, you know. You're going to have an anxious child who can't comply, etc. But what's great about Freud is he really thinks and thought that depending on how much or how little pleasure you got at these different stages, this would have a lasting effect on your personality tendencies. Okay, so he talked about the oral character who's the gullible person who swallows everything. They're a sucker. Okay, they're easily taken in. They're also people that expect things to arrive now, immediately. I don't want to work for it. Just bring it to me. Come on. There's not enough here. So gamblers, very oral. And the casinos know it. Cheap food, cheap drinks. We'll just take all your money. Thank you very much, you know. And if you want to read Dostoyevsky on The Gambler, you get a fascinating insight into that. And it's kind of like there's a lot of talk about Lady Luck as the gambler's mother. You know, the gambler's mother either was there on time too much or wasn't there on time enough. And now you're trying to cajole something for nothing out of the universe. You know, when you know the rates with pokies, you're feeding a machine, basically. You're hard-earned cash. The repay rates are very small. Poker, a different story altogether, of course. Okay. The anal phase. Very much about where and when you're going to defecate. Like, no, you've got to do it now. No, you're not allowed to do it in your pants. You've got to do it here. So it's all about time and place. And it's all about neatness and cleanliness and tidiness, you know. So when they talk about anal characters, they're very, very concerned with things running on time, like trains and things like that, you know. Or everything's got to be lined up. I wish I had more of this. I'm just jealous, okay. You know, all the books are really neat and everything's very orderly. Or you can get the anal messies where they absolutely pay no attention to order. But it's all about time and place. There's also concern about money, which Freud thinks does a stand-in for shit. And so in dreams, that's how he interprets gold. It's quite fascinating in the dream imagery. And so he says they can be very stingy characters, you know, very tight-ass characters, okay. And so he says a lot of contemporary slang acknowledges the things that he's already acknowledging in his theory. And so the anal obsessive, the obsessive-compulsive issues of cleanliness. It's a kind of reaction formation. There's an impulse to play with poo and you over-idealize cleanliness and rigor, et cetera. Now, lots of people think this is really out-of-date. Personality styles don't work in this way anymore. And it's sort of true. Like, a lot of the sort of attempts to systematize this in, you know, law-like generalities within social, psychological, and personality research drew a bit of a blank, okay. But does that mean that there's nothing to this? I'm not sure. I think clinically this is still quite interesting myself. But I'm not sure that it's the sort of thing that you can really, you know, prove in a kind of personality scale research kind of way. Partly because are people really going to be able to self-report on this kind of stuff? I'm not sure. I'm not sure how honest one is, you know. Like, I get – I love ceramics. I get really offended if people say I'm playing with my poo in a sublimated way to make ceramic pots, you know. I can contemplate the possibility. But, you know, it's kind of, oh, do I really want to give that characterization of my endeavor? Probably not. Okay. But the phallic phase, you know, where basically you get caught up with organ pleasure, basically. And the object, it's not love. It's about, you know, sort of organ pleasure and satisfaction. So serial monogamy, one-night stands, not really being concerned about seeing the other again or taking care of the other all that much. That's the kind of, you know, phase that some of us never get past, okay, because it's quite a pleasurable phase and it can be mistaken for genitality, which is a different phase altogether. So Freud suggests that around eight years old we go into latency, where we're not aware of our sexuality at all. We are sort of slightly asexual creatures. And then around 10, 11, 12, it comes back on the scene in a genital way, which means that all of those component instincts, the oral, the anal, the phallic, which is called the polymorphously perverse, keep that in mind. Okay. Polymorphous, many forms of one instinct. So the sexual instincts are not unitary. They are polymorphous. There's many forms, many bodily zones that contribute to our sexuality. And we're allowed, basically. Like, you can kiss. You can have anal sex. You can have one-night stands. I mean, in a sense, we are allowed those things so long as we are obeying the broader cultural mores of our contemporary time. Okay? And in Victorian times, that wasn't very broad. That's what your reading is for this week. It was incredibly strict, basically. Have sex within marriage, and that's it. You know? And you could only marry when you were financially independent, I suppose. And so lots of people had to wait until they were very old to be able to marry. That was fine for guys because it was a double standard. They were allowed to play around. It was death for women. Their sexuality had often almost atrophied, gone out of existence by the time that they were married. And so marriage gets a very bad rap from Freud in that modern nervous illness, civilized sexual marriage in modern nervous illness, because he was so disappointed himself, I think. You know, he had sort of waited for so long. And marriage just didn't bring the goodies that he had hoped it would sexually. So gentle sexuality is a kind of composite. It's like, you know, all these little streams that start on a mountaintop, and by the bottom, they're all running in one river, and it looks like one river. But there are lots of component sources to it, according to him. And when the going gets tough in life, we can regress back. So if you lose your lover, you can go back to oral satisfaction, okay? Or if you lose your lover, you might, you know, go for a gallop around the paddock and have lots of partners in a phallic sort of way, without taking care of people, because you're hurt. So regression would go back along those kinds of strands, according to Freud. So the important thing, the only really important thing out of all of that is that we have these tendencies that persist in our personality, that are the history and the residue of our pleasures, of how we were fed, how timely our needs were met, and with what attitude were we fed and cleaned? You know, if you're having your nappy changed and someone's going, ooh, right? Kids are very tuned to facial expressions, and increasingly so, but they're quite tuned at age two to negative and positive. They don't really get capable of discerning disgust until about four years, six months on average. But they know that something not good is going on, too. So if you're cleaned in a way that signals there's something disgusting about your body, you take that on. There's something about me that's disgusting and I can't help it. Or I'm really hungry and my mother's really tired and she took ages to come and now she just wants to get it over and done with, okay? In other words, there's a lot going on in that transaction other than the bodily satisfaction. But it's because you need, and you need this other person so much, that how they do that has such power. Because you're not powerful. You're wee and all over the place and in bits and pieces, basically, in terms of your body. You don't know you've got a single body. You don't know that you're hungry or thirsty or wet. You just feel bad. It's like, wah! And the mother probably doesn't know either. It's like, oh, no, what's wrong now? Which way do I hold it? You know, I don't know. It doesn't make a difference. Okay. So Freud's theory of pleasure is very much the sort of theory of the one night stand kind of pleasure. It's a contingent coupling. In other words, what satisfies my drives depends on what I can find in my world. And so I might end up quite perverse because what I found in my world might have been lady stockings or shoes or my own thumb. You know what I mean? It's like what you can end up finding pleasure in is kind of limitless, polymorphously perverse. The object of the sex drives is highly free to vary, basically. Now, the advantage of that is it means you can sublimate. It means someone can say, you can't have sex for a year. You can still stay alive. You know, you're not going to die. Try going without water for a year. Not so great. You know. But you don't die from a lack of sex because you can find other sources of satisfaction. And so that makes us creatures that can be enculturated. Yes. That continues. That's a really great question. The question was, this is, I'm not talking to myself, this is for the people that are not in the lecture theater who wouldn't have heard your question. The question was, the polymorphously perverse, does that just go up to the phallic phase or does that continue? The theme of psychoanalysis is that development is inclusive. You never really let go of anything. All of your early possibilities kind of stay with you and you inhibit them or not, as you find out when you get drunk. Okay. You inhibit them or not. But they all kind of stay there. So we are always all polymorphously perverse to a varying degree. It depends on how severe your superego is, how savage your morality is, and what attitudes you take to the polymorphously perverse in you. In other words, if you're quite comfortable with those early phases of your experiences of pleasure, you'll be a highly libidinous kind of character who seems quite free and quite charismatic. If there's been sort of shame and guilt and disgust, you'll be a slightly more restricted person with regard, only with the lights off and only with, you know, da, da, da, you know, with pleasure. And that is a personality variable, par extraordinaire, you know, is how people negotiate embodied pleasure. So polymorphous perversity is always potentially there, but it's unique to you. Your particular polymorphous perversity reflects your psycho-affective embodied history. The transactions you had with those that took care of you get marked on your body. They're in your dispositional tendencies in your body. And that's what psychoanalysis is. That's why I don't think you'd really be able to do, you know, psychometric research on that kind of stuff, because it's just all too unique. But that could be me just trying to hypothesis save. It could be that it's a load of rubbish and there's no evidence for it. I don't know. But it seems to me that there's something there to sum up that. And certainly if you work clinically, it feels like there's a lot to it. Okay. Now, Freud got a really tough time because everybody thought that he was some kind of Newtonian energy man. And it all seemed to sort of assume a sort of like flush toilets in the nervous system was one phrase that they used to use. The energy built up. There was a consummate reaction that was like flushing the toilet. And then the level went back down again and then it filled back up again. And people thought that that was somehow inaccurate and defensive and not true to the way that we are. And they would say, but we never quiescent. We never get to a state where the toilet has been flushed and there's no energy. Yeah, well, that's because there are multiple drives. One might be satisfied, but the others might not be. You know, like it's very unlikely that you've got no needs at any given moment in time. So what Freud would say, and what is still the case in psychoanalytic circles, is that your mind is a compromise, basically. In a sense, you could even run a line that the mind comes into existence because immediate satisfaction isn't always possible. You know, the external world is kind of disobliging. You're hungry and there's no food. You're thirsty and where's the water? You know, you feel desire and there's nobody there that you fancy. Or there are no shoes that you fancy. If you remember last week's lecture with the polymorphously perverse, the lady can go, but the shoes stay. Okay. So in other words, your mind occurs as a way of pacifying yourself until the real thing comes along. You think about it. You imagine that it's going to happen. You plan for it. You visualize it. You fantasize about it. And this is all kind of mental activity going, I'm going to get it. I'm going to get it. One day it's going to happen. I'll get what I want. Okay. So in a sense, mind is a compromise. And the body needs that to bring together its demand because the body just wants more and wants it now. But the external world has got to be worked upon. Things have got to be discovered and found and cooked and eaten, et cetera. Okay. So the drive is a demand for work. It's a body-mind frontier concept. And the mind is obliged to respond in virtue of its connection with the body. So that's a psychoanalysis power extraordinaire. Okay. Affects. Now I'm really going to confuse you. And then I hope to un-confuse you again. But I may not be successful in that. So let me know how you're going. Okay. So affects are also known as basic affects, confusingly enough, discrete emotions and basic emotions. And that's a worry. I'm going to call them affects. And every time I use the word affect, I'm going to be referring to affect programs which are innately specified. And I'm never going to use affect in another way. And if I do, tell me. That'll keep you awake at least. Okay. Silvan Tomkins was the guy that really put this whole thing on the stage back in 62. I wasn't reading it in 62, I promise you. Okay. So interest and excitement's number one. Notice that the earlier one in the couple is the milder one. Enjoyment, joy. Surprise, startle. Distress, anguish. Anger, rage. And fear, terror. He thinks that these ones were actions. He's a kind of Darwinian. He thinks that these are the sort of expressive residues of things we used to do to the world. So fear, terror, running. Anger, rage, smashing. Smashing something that's going to destroy us. Yeah. Interest, excitement, exploration and discovery. Enjoyment, joy. Got something. It's present. You know, it's right here. Okay. Distress, anguish. It's not here and there's nothing I can do about it. It's got that helplessness. Okay. So those are the kind of six effects. He thinks they're innately specified. That they capture body, breath and glands. So the minute you're in one of these states, it's not just that your amygdala fires when you're in a state of fear. The whole neurotransmitter soup that you end up bathing in that's running right through your body changes. So when we talk about your current emotional state, it's what wet wear is sort of activated right now in your body that is shaping your state. Just for the record, and this is too much information for a third year course, but he's got six effects and then he's got three other things that sometimes people refer to as nine effects. They say, Silvan Tomkins had nine effects. He had six effects and three other things. One affect auxiliary, which is shame, and two drive auxiliaries, which is disgust and dismount. But just for the record, shame is where there's an interruption in your pleasure. So it's an auxiliary to some other affect. It's usually an auxiliary to a positive affect. So for instance, I might have been having an absolutely fantastic time eating and thinking everybody approved of me eating. And then I suddenly noticed that they're going, Oh my God, did you see how much she's putting away? That's her third helping. And I go, Hmm, there's something wrong in the social field. Here was me thinking I was having a great time. And everybody's looking at me and my pleasure is not okay. And when it's there in an innate form, that's all that it does. It makes you stop what you were doing and you look down. You want to not see what others are thinking of you at that moment. It gets much more complex as you get more complex, as you get a sense of self, theory of mind, capacity of self-reflection. You can really beat yourself up with shame once it starts to sort of modify and change. But at its innate form, it's just, Oh, there's something wrong. People don't think I should be doing what I'm doing. I don't know why, but I can pick up that. Okay. Drive auxiliaries. Disgust is, Ah, I just put something into my body that tastes disgusting. I'm going to spit it back out. And so disgust is kind of like a spitting out. So it's a drive auxiliary about hunger. And dissmell, you notice with dissmell the lip curls. You're sort of stopping smell going up your nose. Something doesn't smell right. And it's slightly better in that you think, I'm not going to put that into my body. Because it doesn't smell good. You know, chicken that you've had too long in the fridge. It's like, I don't think so. Okay. Now, flicking from 62 to 2012. And I could have had lots and lots of people in the middle. But I thought I'd just take the big guys that are very, very well regarded. Jaak Panksepp Almost impossible to say. Jaak Panksepp And Mark Solms, well regarded. Neuropsychologists, neuroaffective people and neuropsychoanalysts. Mark Solms is a neuropsychoanalyst. Okay. Here's how they carve it up. So they've got the seeking system. This is the curiosity system. It's expectant. They've got lust in there. And it's a subsystem of your seeking. They've got hunger in there. And it's a subsystem of your seeking. So I hope you can see that according to my scheme of things, they've got the hunger drive. They've got the sex drive. And they've got that all melded in with curiosity, interest and surprise. Okay. So to my view, they're cross-classifying things in a way that's not necessarily unhelpful. But I just want to keep them separate. Then they've got rage as a separate thing and fear as a separate thing, which seem to me possible. Anger and fear. That's okay. They've got panic, which is what happens when the person that's supposed to be protecting you isn't there. They've got care and nurturance, which is the kind of attachment impulse that we've got. And then they've got play, which I think is a bit unusual and I think would be better served by the affects like curiosity, interest and surprise. But what play captures is that when the heat's off, like we're not being predated, nothing's going to eat us and there's nothing we want to mate with urgently, we can play. And we're not in any overwhelming need still. Okay. So DiMaggio, also a sort of like major writer in this area, he has mapped what he sees as different patterns of brain arousal, both in terms of activation and inhibition of different emotional states. So he's got grief, joy, rage and fear. So I'm just trying to sort of show you that there is some consensus in the partitioning of things. But there's also, as you can see, some cross-classification. How are you going? We've got three more minutes before I give you a coffee. And then it gets much more social in the second hour. Okay. So in other words, there are all sorts of different people thinking differently about these hot components of motivation. At the level of the brain, the contemporary people cross-classify what I would call drives and affects a bit. But theoretically, there are incredibly diverse views around emotional and affect. Okay. So some people say drives and affects just go together. They hedge their bets. If you notice what punksepp and psalm say, they say, what's good news for me about this? Is they're saying they're real. You know, we can find distinct neural signature patterns of underpinning. That's good news. But they don't carve up theoretically in the way that I had hoped, which means I may have to change my views. Or it may be that I just have to distinguish things that they don't distinguish. Because they put instinctual emotional networks together. So in other words, they're not interested in drives on their own and emotions on their own. They're interested in the way that those things come to function together. And so am I, in a sense. But theoretically, I want to keep the two things discreet. So he says these things are what mediate our rewards and punishment. And they've been reliably identified across mammals. So it really is a case of animals like ours. Which is the sort of like opening part of today's lecture. Okay. Just to sort of finish this first part of the lecture. So you've got Freud who says drives are continuously flowing and they're in the body. And this is how I'm going to use it. You've got affects, which say there are basic pre-wired programs. We're born with them. They enable us to respond to stimuli. And they navigate our drives around. It's like, oh, that looks interesting. Oh, that looks edible. What about that? Oh, no, I think I'd get killed if I mated with that. Fear. Run away. Okay. That's it. Emotions, I think, are different altogether. Because as soon as I'm really cognitively sophisticated, the way that I experience my affects also becomes incredibly sophisticated. Also, I work out what my culture wants me to do with my affect programs. Okay, I'm furious, but my culture says girls don't show anger. So I learn a way of masking my anger. Hmm. You know, you look at me, you know I'm angry. She's masking her anger with a big smile. Okay. So in other words, you learn to read cultural masking of the affect programs. So it gets complex. But it's still not impossible for you to know what's going on. And, of course, emotions, culturally diverse, vast, specific, unique, exquisite, poetic. Feelings are more or less conscious things that signal something to me. You can't really have an unconscious feeling. You can have a feeling that you weren't really focusing on. Gosh, I didn't realize my bum was numb, right? You know, or you can have a feeling that you are trying not to feel. Gee, I really, you know, fancy my brother's girlfriend. Well, I won't notice that. You know, it's like I'm just actually nervous. Yeah. So, but you can't, you can't actually have a feeling where there's not something that it's like to be in that state. You know, feelings really put you in a state and they're very able to be known about. So the short summary so far. We've got these basic building blocks that bring us into contact with both inner and outer reality. They cause conflict because we've got multiple sources of motivation. Adam Phillips says it's like we've got these sunflowers that are multiple and they're turning to different suns. You know, so it's like our drives have all got different impulses and urges and they're not all facing the same way at the same time. They're inborn survival mechanisms that motivate us, but they don't stay that way. They don't stay brute and raw drives and brute and raw affects. Because they're shaped by the reception they get, both the reception that they get interpersonally, but also how we receive them, the attitudes that we take to them. They're shaped by the reception they get as mental events. The body's there going, hmm, um, once more. The mind's going, oh, no. Okay, so they can conflict with each other. But in socialisation, that conflict is what socialises us, controls us and shapes us. That was the second lecture in the series Philosophy of Psychoanalysis presented by Associate Professor Doris McIlwain. The theme song to the show was created by Rose Mackenzie-Peterson. The producer is myself, Nina McIlwain. Thanks to Andrew Geeves and John Sutton. Speak soon. The theme song.