Re: virus: Re:comedy

Brett Lane Robertson (
Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:57:40 -0500

Steve, thanks for asking ("Can you do it again but for the "Archetpe
impaired" I didn't get the reference to the oedipus complex.").

My understanding of the oedipal complex is originally freudian so it
suggested that a child experiences certain things because of or in spite of
the mother and father (kind of like the child is a non-person and his/her
development is dependent on the mother and father's interaction). I assume
that the child experiences certain things because it is the nature of the
child. Jung believed that the trinity is feminine and the quaternary
masculine. I see the child as a unity and reinterpret "masculine/feminine"
as the duality of child/adolescent; therefore, the trinity is
child/adolescent/adult--which in turn is unity (child), duality
(adolescent), trinity (adult). This is an internal growth pattern--a
development of the psyche--which has an external counterpart; but as the
individual is primary, the social recreates the individual and not visa-versa.

Using the child--then--as a symbol of unity, all external issues are
resolved in relation to him. "Female" becomes child/not-child (or
adolescent--not surprisingly the period of discerning secondary
characteristics female vs. male). "Male" becomes child/not-child/child, or
(adult--the adult being the child who survived adolescence beginning the
mating dance female vs. male). This results in the birth of the child (who
then services the death of the female and the male).

My "world clock" of the trinity (composed of, 1.
unity/duality/trinity...2. unity/duality...3. unity) attempted to show how
the social (family) dynamics of the jester was related to the interaction of
the king and queen; but obviously, this system becomes complicated quickly.
In short, I was saying that unity survives through duality and trinity in
the combined ways illustrated (simplified in the freudian model to: the
child hates the father and wants to marry the mother).*

I used this idea in the previous post to "deconstruct" the clown (though it
is really a constructivist model built from the ground up beginning with
the essence of the child, my internal paradigm having grown through that
stage). The reconstructed oedipal conflict is therefore: The male and
female destroy each other producing the child, and the child contains this
conflict within himself becoming adolescent. I replaced the terms male and
female with "king" and "queen" and adolescent with "jester" in the post. And
went looking for the child, or "cause"--that which survives.

*This seems to be the essence of the christian religion and (even more so)
the arthurian legend of the holy grail and does in fact seem to do with
fertility in the sense of composting the father and mother so the child can


At 04:41 PM 8/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Brett-- I'm really interested in your deconstruction of the clown, but I
>just didn't get it. Can you do it again but for the "Archetpe impaired" I
>didn't get the reference to the oedipus complex.
>Oedipus is of the tragedian mode and was made into a complex long after
>clowning was a well established profession. I really liek Northrop Frye's
>theories of Genre... he thinks all comedy is about fertility.

Rabble Sonnet Retort
Take what you can use and let the rest go by.