INTRODUCTION
Let us start by making a little apology to Psychoanalysis. It wasn't
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious; or perhaps it _was_
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious, which is truly a
negative quantity and an unpleasant menagerie. What was really not
fair was to jeer at Psychoanalysis as if Freud had invented and
described nothing but an unconscious, in all his theory.
The unconscious is not, of course, the clue to the Freudian theory.
The real clue is sex. A sexual motive is to be attributed to all human
activity.
Now this is going too far. We are bound to admit than an element of
sex enters into all human activity. But so does an element of greed,
and of many other things. We are bound to admit that into all human
relationships, particularly adult human relationships, a large
element of sex enters. We are thankful that Freud has insisted on
this. We are thankful that Freud pulled us somewhat to earth, out of
all our clouds of superfineness. What Freud says is always _partly_
true. And half a loaf is better than no bread.
But really, there is the other half of the loaf. All is _not_ sex. And
a sexual motive is _not_ to be attributed to all human activities. We
know it, without need to argue.
Sex surely has a specific meaning. Sex means the being divided into
male and female; and the magnetic desire or impulse which puts male
apart from female, in a negative or sundering magnetism, but which
also draws male and female together in a long and infinitely varied
approach towards the critical act of coition. Sex without the
consummating act of coition is never quite sex, in human
relationships: just as a eunuch is never quite a man. That is to say,
the act of coition is the essential clue to sex.
Now does all life work up to the one consummating act of coition? In
one direction, it does, and it would be better if psychoanalysis
plainly said so. In one direction, all life works up to the one
supreme moment of coition. Let us all admit it, sincerely.
But we are not confined to one direction only, or to one exclusive
consummation. Was the building of the cathedrals a working up towards
the act of coition? Was the dynamic impulse sexual? No. The sexual
element was present, and important. But not predominant. The same in
the building of the Panama Canal. The sexual impulse, in its widest
form, was a very great impulse towards the building of the Panama
Canal. But there was something else, of even higher importance, and
greater dynamic power.
And what is this other, greater impulse? It is the desire of the human
male to build a world: not "to build a world for you, dear"; but to
build up out of his own self and his own belief and his own effort
something wonderful. Not merely something useful. Something wonderful.
Even the Panama Canal would never have been built _simply_ to let
ships through. It is the pure disinterested craving of the human male
to make something wonderful, out of his own head and his own self, and
his own soul's faith and delight, which starts everything going. This
is the prime motivity. And the motivity of sex is subsidiary to this:
often directly antagonistic.
That is, the essentially religious or creative motive is the first
motive for all human activity. The sexual motive comes second. And
there is a great conflict between the interests of the two, at all
times.
What we want to do, is to trace the creative or religious motive to
its source in the human being, keeping in mind always the near
relationship between the religious motive and the sexual. The two
great impulses are like man and wife, or father and son. It is no use
putting one under the feet of the other.
The great desire to-day is to deny the religious impulse altogether,
or else to assert its absolute alienity from the sexual impulse. The
orthodox religious world says faugh! to sex. Whereupon we thank Freud
for giving them tit for tat. But the orthodox scientific world says
fie! to the religious impulse. The scientist wants to discover a cause
for everything. And there is no cause for the religious impulse. Freud
is with the scientists. Jung dodges from his university gown into a
priest's surplice till we don't know where we are. We prefer Freud's
_Sex_ to Jung's _Libido_ or Bergson's _Elan Vital_. Sex has at least
_some_ definite reference, though when Freud makes sex accountable for
everything he as good as makes it accountable for nothing.
We refuse any _Cause_, whether it be Sex or Libido or Elan Vital or
ether or unit of force or _perpetuum mobile_ or anything else. But
also we feel that we cannot, like Moses, perish on the top of our
present
"1100396985"
Let us start by making a little apology to Psychoanalysis. It wasn't
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious; or perhaps it _was_
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious, which is truly a
negative quantity and an unpleasant menagerie. What was really not
fair was to jeer at Psychoanalysis as if Freud had invented and
described nothing but an unconscious, in all his theory.
The unconscious is not, of course, the clue to the Freudian theory.
The real clue is sex. A sexual motive is to be attributed to all human
activity.
Now this is going too far. We are bound to admit than an element of
sex enters into all human activity. But so does an element of greed,
and of many other things. We are bound to admit that into all human
relationships, particularly adult human relationships, a large
element of sex enters. We are thankful that Freud has insisted on
this. We are thankful that Freud pulled us somewhat to earth, out of
all our clouds of superfineness. What Freud says is always _partly_
true. And half a loaf is better than no bread.
But really, there is the other half of the loaf. All is _not_ sex. And
a sexual motive is _not_ to be attributed to all human activities. We
know it, without need to argue.
Sex surely has a specific meaning. Sex means the being divided into
male and female; and the magnetic desire or impulse which puts male
apart from female, in a negative or sundering magnetism, but which
also draws male and female together in a long and infinitely varied
approach towards the critical act of coition. Sex without the
consummating act of coition is never quite sex, in human
relationships: just as a eunuch is never quite a man. That is to say,
the act of coition is the essential clue to sex.
Now does all life work up to the one consummating act of coition? In
one direction, it does, and it would be better if psychoanalysis
plainly said so. In one direction, all life works up to the one
supreme moment of coition. Let us all admit it, sincerely.
But we are not confined to one direction only, or to one exclusive
consummation. Was the building of the cathedrals a working up towards
the act of coition? Was the dynamic impulse sexual? No. The sexual
element was present, and important. But not predominant. The same in
the building of the Panama Canal. The sexual impulse, in its widest
form, was a very great impulse towards the building of the Panama
Canal. But there was something else, of even higher importance, and
greater dynamic power.
And what is this other, greater impulse? It is the desire of the human
male to build a world: not "to build a world for you, dear"; but to
build up out of his own self and his own belief and his own effort
something wonderful. Not merely something useful. Something wonderful.
Even the Panama Canal would never have been built _simply_ to let
ships through. It is the pure disinterested craving of the human male
to make something wonderful, out of his own head and his own self, and
his own soul's faith and delight, which starts everything going. This
is the prime motivity. And the motivity of sex is subsidiary to this:
often directly antagonistic.
That is, the essentially religious or creative motive is the first
motive for all human activity. The sexual motive comes second. And
there is a great conflict between the interests of the two, at all
times.
What we want to do, is to trace the creative or religious motive to
its source in the human being, keeping in mind always the near
relationship between the religious motive and the sexual. The two
great impulses are like man and wife, or father and son. It is no use
putting one under the feet of the other.
The great desire to-day is to deny the religious impulse altogether,
or else to assert its absolute alienity from the sexual impulse. The
orthodox religious world says faugh! to sex. Whereupon we thank Freud
for giving them tit for tat. But the orthodox scientific world says
fie! to the religious impulse. The scientist wants to discover a cause
for everything. And there is no cause for the religious impulse. Freud
is with the scientists. Jung dodges from his university gown into a
priest's surplice till we don't know where we are. We prefer Freud's
_Sex_ to Jung's _Libido_ or Bergson's _Elan Vital_. Sex has at least
_some_ definite reference, though when Freud makes sex accountable for
everything he as good as makes it accountable for nothing.
We refuse any _Cause_, whether it be Sex or Libido or Elan Vital or
ether or unit of force or _perpetuum mobile_ or anything else. But
also we feel that we cannot, like Moses, perish on the top of our
present
FANTASIA OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
INTRODUCTION
Let us start by making a little apology to Psychoanalysis. It wasn't
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious; or perhaps it _was_
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious, which is truly a
negative quantity and an unpleasant menagerie. What was really not
fair was to jeer at Psychoanalysis as if Freud had invented and
described nothing but an unconscious, in all his theory.
The unconscious is not, of course, the clue to the Freudian theory.
The real clue is sex. A sexual motive is to be attributed to all human
activity.
Now this is going too far. We are bound to admit than an element of
sex enters into all human activity. But so does an element of greed,
and of many other things. We are bound to admit that into all human
relationships, particularly adult human relationships, a large
element of sex enters. We are thankful that Freud has insisted on
this. We are thankful that Freud pulled us somewhat to earth, out of
all our clouds of superfineness. What Freud says is always _partly_
true. And half a loaf is better than no bread.
But really, there is the other half of the loaf. All is _not_ sex. And
a sexual motive is _not_ to be attributed to all human activities. We
know it, without need to argue.
Sex surely has a specific meaning. Sex means the being divided into
male and female; and the magnetic desire or impulse which puts male
apart from female, in a negative or sundering magnetism, but which
also draws male and female together in a long and infinitely varied
approach towards the critical act of coition. Sex without the
consummating act of coition is never quite sex, in human
relationships: just as a eunuch is never quite a man. That is to say,
the act of coition is the essential clue to sex.
Now does all life work up to the one consummating act of coition? In
one direction, it does, and it would be better if psychoanalysis
plainly said so. In one direction, all life works up to the one
supreme moment of coition. Let us all admit it, sincerely.
But we are not confined to one direction only, or to one exclusive
consummation. Was the building of the cathedrals a working up towards
the act of coition? Was the dynamic impulse sexual? No. The sexual
element was present, and important. But not predominant. The same in
the building of the Panama Canal. The sexual impulse, in its widest
form, was a very great impulse towards the building of the Panama
Canal. But there was something else, of even higher importance, and
greater dynamic power.
And what is this other, greater impulse? It is the desire of the human
male to build a world: not "to build a world for you, dear"; but to
build up out of his own self and his own belief and his own effort
something wonderful. Not merely something useful. Something wonderful.
Even the Panama Canal would never have been built _simply_ to let
ships through. It is the pure disinterested craving of the human male
to make something wonderful, out of his own head and his own self, and
his own soul's faith and delight, which starts everything going. This
is the prime motivity. And the motivity of sex is subsidiary to this:
often directly antagonistic.
That is, the essentially religious or creative motive is the first
motive for all human activity. The sexual motive comes second. And
there is a great conflict between the interests of the two, at all
times.
What we want to do, is to trace the creative or religious motive to
its source in the human being, keeping in mind always the near
relationship between the religious motive and the sexual. The two
great impulses are like man and wife, or father and son. It is no use
putting one under the feet of the other.
The great desire to-day is to deny the religious impulse altogether,
or else to assert its absolute alienity from the sexual impulse. The
orthodox religious world says faugh! to sex. Whereupon we thank Freud
for giving them tit for tat. But the orthodox scientific world says
fie! to the religious impulse. The scientist wants to discover a cause
for everything. And there is no cause for the religious impulse. Freud
is with the scientists. Jung dodges from his university gown into a
priest's surplice till we don't know where we are. We prefer Freud's
_Sex_ to Jung's _Libido_ or Bergson's _Elan Vital_. Sex has at least
_some_ definite reference, though when Freud makes sex accountable for
everything he as good as makes it accountable for nothing.
We refuse any _Cause_, whether it be Sex or Libido or Elan Vital or
ether or unit of force or _perpetuum mobile_ or anything else. But
also we feel that we cannot, like Moses, perish on the top of our
present
Let us start by making a little apology to Psychoanalysis. It wasn't
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious; or perhaps it _was_
fair to jeer at the psychoanalytic unconscious, which is truly a
negative quantity and an unpleasant menagerie. What was really not
fair was to jeer at Psychoanalysis as if Freud had invented and
described nothing but an unconscious, in all his theory.
The unconscious is not, of course, the clue to the Freudian theory.
The real clue is sex. A sexual motive is to be attributed to all human
activity.
Now this is going too far. We are bound to admit than an element of
sex enters into all human activity. But so does an element of greed,
and of many other things. We are bound to admit that into all human
relationships, particularly adult human relationships, a large
element of sex enters. We are thankful that Freud has insisted on
this. We are thankful that Freud pulled us somewhat to earth, out of
all our clouds of superfineness. What Freud says is always _partly_
true. And half a loaf is better than no bread.
But really, there is the other half of the loaf. All is _not_ sex. And
a sexual motive is _not_ to be attributed to all human activities. We
know it, without need to argue.
Sex surely has a specific meaning. Sex means the being divided into
male and female; and the magnetic desire or impulse which puts male
apart from female, in a negative or sundering magnetism, but which
also draws male and female together in a long and infinitely varied
approach towards the critical act of coition. Sex without the
consummating act of coition is never quite sex, in human
relationships: just as a eunuch is never quite a man. That is to say,
the act of coition is the essential clue to sex.
Now does all life work up to the one consummating act of coition? In
one direction, it does, and it would be better if psychoanalysis
plainly said so. In one direction, all life works up to the one
supreme moment of coition. Let us all admit it, sincerely.
But we are not confined to one direction only, or to one exclusive
consummation. Was the building of the cathedrals a working up towards
the act of coition? Was the dynamic impulse sexual? No. The sexual
element was present, and important. But not predominant. The same in
the building of the Panama Canal. The sexual impulse, in its widest
form, was a very great impulse towards the building of the Panama
Canal. But there was something else, of even higher importance, and
greater dynamic power.
And what is this other, greater impulse? It is the desire of the human
male to build a world: not "to build a world for you, dear"; but to
build up out of his own self and his own belief and his own effort
something wonderful. Not merely something useful. Something wonderful.
Even the Panama Canal would never have been built _simply_ to let
ships through. It is the pure disinterested craving of the human male
to make something wonderful, out of his own head and his own self, and
his own soul's faith and delight, which starts everything going. This
is the prime motivity. And the motivity of sex is subsidiary to this:
often directly antagonistic.
That is, the essentially religious or creative motive is the first
motive for all human activity. The sexual motive comes second. And
there is a great conflict between the interests of the two, at all
times.
What we want to do, is to trace the creative or religious motive to
its source in the human being, keeping in mind always the near
relationship between the religious motive and the sexual. The two
great impulses are like man and wife, or father and son. It is no use
putting one under the feet of the other.
The great desire to-day is to deny the religious impulse altogether,
or else to assert its absolute alienity from the sexual impulse. The
orthodox religious world says faugh! to sex. Whereupon we thank Freud
for giving them tit for tat. But the orthodox scientific world says
fie! to the religious impulse. The scientist wants to discover a cause
for everything. And there is no cause for the religious impulse. Freud
is with the scientists. Jung dodges from his university gown into a
priest's surplice till we don't know where we are. We prefer Freud's
_Sex_ to Jung's _Libido_ or Bergson's _Elan Vital_. Sex has at least
_some_ definite reference, though when Freud makes sex accountable for
everything he as good as makes it accountable for nothing.
We refuse any _Cause_, whether it be Sex or Libido or Elan Vital or
ether or unit of force or _perpetuum mobile_ or anything else. But
also we feel that we cannot, like Moses, perish on the top of our
present
0.99
In Stock
5
1
FANTASIA OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
FANTASIA OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
Related collections and offers
0.99
In Stock
Product Details
| BN ID: | 2940012101242 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | SAP |
| Publication date: | 01/31/2011 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| File size: | 156 KB |
About the Author
From the B&N Reads Blog