Nice post. It’s excellent your able to productively reflect on your past relationships.
I’m gonna throw down some challenges to you, in response to your comments on Freud.
“[Pheromones] seem more viable than Freud?”
Hmmm … really? It is either one or the other? So, if your father had been different, you wouldn’t have felt different and, perhaps, chosen different men? It is all predetermined in pheromones and genes and thus the effect of experiences after sperm met egg is eliminated?
Ah, cocaine and Freud-bashing. Bringing up cocaine is just an ad hominem attack. I suppose if I drank coffee (caffeine, another stimulant) and felt a little energized and a little mood lift and then told you 2+2=4 you could “discredit my reputation completely” and never deal with my answer to the math equation directly?
Also, Freud didn’t discover an incest desire. The laws against incest date back to our prehistory. One can deduce from any law that exists (prohibiting an act) that there are people who desire to commit that act or why would the law have ever come about? Freud is only saying that we have feelings and attachments from early life on and he is putting a spotlight on the feelings we had in the beginning stages of our life, before our minds were developed enough to reason and deal with all of them. I think the problem that comes about when people think about Freud is semantical. If Freud had told you that, at times, the small child has strong feelings of attachment and strong fears of losing the parent and strong feelings of worry and jealousy if they see that parent loving someone else, people would readily agree. I think Freud called it “sexual” because he was building a comprehensive model of the mind and seeing the person at all levels, including the biological. So, he was tracing back the roots of feeling-states to biological instincts. Which by the way, is the same thing you and others are doing with the focus on the pheromones connection (feelings –> biology). Ironic, isn’t it?
On The Fetish-izing of Science:
Show me the scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind study that proves that Shakespeare (or any literature or art) is great, insightful and worthwhile. You can’t. So, you must conclude it is not. You make a religion out of science. Science as the all-knowing, all-seeing God. Science is the Great Negator. Science proves nothing. For science believes nothing is true and proven. Science believes the only thing that it can have is a hypothesis that seems true after 1000s of tests. And that’s it. A hypothesis. It seems true and is not proven true, for it only takes 1 single test to disprove it. Then hypothesis is dead and gone (and never was a proven truth). The only thing it believes in is disproof, as it should. And that should put it (and you) in a humble position. Not an arrogant one that acts like it knows it all, is the final arbitrator of truth, and everyone else and their contribution to our knowledge is bunk. And real scientists know and believe this and don’t have such an arrogant-orientation.
Also, science and psychoanalysis are not diametrically opposed, either/or propositions. “The mindless materialism which left little causal room for the mental is now an anachronism so that affective mind and unconscious motivation are no longer banished from behaviouristic psychology which has appropriated psychoanalytic concepts. Including defence mechanisms, the unconscious, therapeutic alliance, attachment and the notion that early relationship templates colour how people perceive and interact with the world as adults. Other psychotherapy models (CBT, IPT and others) have incorporated psychoanalytic concepts without proper crediting, while denying the increasing empirical support for the theory and the growing evidence base for analytically oriented therapies.” (Westen, D. 1998, Psychological Bulletin. 124(3): 333-371; Solms, M. & Turnbull, O. Cortex, 2007 and issues of the journal Neuropsychoanalysis, including 2008 and Todd, P.B. (2008). “Mind and Matter”, Volume 6, Issue 2). The journals mentioned as a sample in this posting are all professionally peer-reviewed.”