Text of the Fifth Session of the "Free Association" Series

Session Date: 2025/11/22

Question:
In the previous session, you spoke about the distinction between human and non-human matters and mentioned that although existential questions are gaining increasing importance, this question also arises: why, despite the efforts of past philosophers and thinkers in investigating fundamental questions, has the condition of contemporary humanity turned out this way? Could you speak about this and its relation to the "body"?
I link my question to the body because it stems from a dream I had a while ago; in that dream, beyond speech, the body and bodily emotions also had a prominent presence. It was as if the people in the dream were also in dialogue with their bodies. Can the reason for the disconnect between the questions of predecessors and reality be found in this very separation of the body from speech?

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
Speech is the language of the body's needs and emerges from the context of the body's demands. The words and discourses that flow from the tongue are rooted in man's primary and physical needs: hunger, thirst, sexual desire... The needs of modern humans are different from those of humans in the past. What was considered a "need" for humans in the past is now easily fulfilled. Therefore, undoubtedly, the questions raised by past generations are not the same as those of the current generation.
Humans in the past distinguished themselves by raising questions and engaging in dialogue; as if they wanted to escape confronting their bodily events and physical needs. But in today's generation, where many of these needs are met, the questions have also taken on a different color and flavor. It seems the new generation seeks to establish connection, thereby finding a way to fulfill their primary needs.
Recent psychoanalytic research and many articles indicate that the "Name-of-the-Father" has lost its former place and function, and we are facing a generation that disregards the father and the law. But in my opinion, the opposite has happened; I disagree with the view that the "Name-of-the-Father" no longer exists; rather, I believe this name has now become more internalized.
Many concepts that had specific definitions in the past will have a different relationship with humans in the future. For example, the concept of "money," which has been the motive for many competitions and wars in the past and present, might not be used in the future in the form we know today. As Elon Musk has also pointed out, money in the future will not have its current importance and will lose its present value. Humans will step into a new world, and new dimensions of humanity, human needs, and methods of communication will emerge.

Question:
For instance, what dimensions and needs? The point you made about money becoming unimportant in the future is very surprising and novel to me. How is it possible for money to become unimportant, in a world where wars and communications all revolve around money?

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
If we consider the primary connection with the mother and the primary object (the mother), we see that this connection is different for past generations (e.g., those born in the 1980s in Iran) compared to the new generation. Previous generations had great fear when facing certain spaces and realms; for instance, towards drugs or phenomena like God, they either maintained a fearful distance or clung to them, trapped in an addictive bond. But for a generation that has experienced connection and need fulfillment differently, the relationship with phenomena has also transformed. They quickly pass through everything; consequently, their relationship with money and God will likely be the same.
The connection within the triangle of God, Father, Money is different for this generation, and for this reason, deification or bonding with substitute objects, and entering and exiting them, in the way it happened for previous generations, will not occur for them. Therefore, it can be said that object relations will take a different form in the future.
Generally, wherever there is talk of competition, money also finds meaning. In the world of the past and for previous generations, competition was important for the reasons I mentioned, whereas for future generations, the concept of competition will also be transformed. The point is not that money will no longer be of interest, but that it will lose its previous function. Even in today's world, an individual who knows themselves better and, so to speak, has more "subjectivity," their relationship with money and competition is transformed.

Question:
My question is in this same context: Given the transformation of needs, priorities, and methods of communication in the new generation, and observing the virtual space and platforms like Instagram – where completely different connections are formed compared to the past – how can these changes be explained and associated with the issue of bodily needs?

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
Regarding virtual space, there are also two forms of connection: The first is individuals who treat virtual space like an external, addictive object, which pertains more to previous generations. Or, the connections are such that individuals quickly pass through the substitute object – meaning neither absolute distancing nor clinging occurs. For example, past generations needed extensive rituals to maintain the position of the father and other significant others in life. One had to perform special rites from dawn and observe specific customs to make the father known to others. But today's generation speaks of their parents easily and has a psychological relationship with them, without the need for all those rituals. This does not mean the father's place is declining; rather, it could indicate that the father has become more internalized in them. We must see which aspects of this transformation will manifest in the future.
As we see in today's generation, people gather to talk with each other, not necessarily to fulfill primary needs. Undoubtedly, this type of discourse will differ from the discourse of past generations – which was saturated with specific definitions and rituals – and will result in a different output and evolution.
The structure of the family – in the sense of being composed of man, woman, and child for fulfilling sexual or pre-determined needs – will also take a different form; such that individuals will come together to establish connections that are different and go beyond biological needs. In fact, such a connection can also lead to a relationship between the two sexes "man and woman"; two different qualities who are not together merely for the sake of biological needs and sexual relations.

Question:
To complement your words, I want to mention that relationships and family structures have transformed. It seems people no longer feel the necessity to form a family in the traditional way, and relationships have become much more fluid and simpler. Also, I have a question that, although seemingly unrelated to the previous discussion: Why do obsessions have so many problems with the father?

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
In fact, there is a deep connection between the two points you raised. In response to the first part of your comment, I must say that gradually, forming a family and the union of couples is gaining a deeper and more genuine necessity and taking on a more real form. Given that the previous deprivations in the realm of need and need fulfillment no longer exist, people come together for the essence of the relationship, not merely for need fulfillment. When relationships are not distorted for the sake of need fulfillment and their reality is not censored, then the previous problems with members and the father's domination, in the way it existed before – a domination that was obsession-creating – will not exist.
Moreover, in the newer generation, the intensity and quality of obsessions are changing, and there is no longer a need for those previous rituals!

Question:
A while ago, a girl online spoke in complete detail about the harms her father (who, incidentally, was a psychologist) had inflicted on her in childhood. What preoccupies my mind is this: What happens that a person can so easily speak about their most private experiences?

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
Your question suggests that you seem to assume that the laws and values of the past must be preserved in the same way in the present era; that relationships should remain as they were defined in the old days. If in the past the father held a certain position and, to maintain respect between child and father, certain things were left unsaid, then the same behaviors and beliefs should remain in place today. Of course, the point is not that in our time respect should be ignored or sanctities broken, but rather that the new generation speaks not out of need, but from a desire to establish connection, and accepts that the form of this connection can be different from what it was in the past.

Question:
Another issue for me is the tendency of some in the new generation towards isolation and reluctance to form relationships. What is your opinion on this?

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
Humans do not live in a vacuum; humans find meaning in relationship, and it is the "other" or "others" that play a fundamental role in their formation. Could you please pose your question more precisely?

Continuation of the Question:
I mean emotional and sexual relationships. For instance, I have heard very often from the new generation that they have no desire to form sexual relationships or express attachment and love in the manner of past generations, and they consider interaction with the opposite sex pointless. For example, a girl says the boys of this era are not real boys or men. What do you think is the reason for this?

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
The issue raised by many young or adolescent girls is that they say: "Men today are not men," or "They don't have the masculine characteristics of the past generation." A complaint that is essentially based on the feeling that masculinity, as interpreted in the past, is declining. But the main point is that if these same girls were to connect with men who possessed the same characteristics as the previous generation, they probably wouldn't last even a week. The reverse is also true: if the boys of today's generation were to encounter women who had the idealistic, self-sacrificing, or motherly image of the past, that relationship would not last either.
In reality, that girl or boy is protesting against the mother's desire which still works powerfully within them.
At the depth of this statement lies a protest against the mother who, due to dependency, could not establish a different and independent connection with her husband or her father. It seems that these girls and adolescents you refer to have such a protest within themselves and must be able to connect with those parts of themselves that protest against the previous structures and see their shortcomings, and also allow those parts to speak.
In fact, you cannot connect with the new generation and new thought using the mental and psychological paradigms of yesterday. Their words, more than needing association, require decoding.