4/06/2013

From the enormous political, social, and historical content of Schreber's delirium, not one word is retained, as though the libido did not bother itself with such things.

_______________

From the enormous
political, social, and historical content of Schreber's delirium, not one
word is retained, as though the libido did not bother itself with such
things. Freud invokes only a sexual argument, which consists in



bringing about the union of sexuality and the familial complex, and a
mythological argument, which consists in positing the adequation of the
productive force of the unconscious and the "edifying forces of myths
and religions."
This latter argument is very important, and it is not by chance that
                                             here Freud declares himself in agreement with Jung. In a certain way
this agreement subsists after their break.\\

 If the unconscious is thought to
express itself adequately in myths and religions (taking into account, of
course, the work of transformation), there are two ways of reading this
adequation, but they have in common the postulate that measures the
unconscious against myth, and that from the start substitutes mere

expressive forms for the productive formations. The basic question is

never asked, but cast aside: Why return to myth? Why take it as the

model? 




The supposed adequation can then be interpreted in what is
termed anagogical fashion, toward the "higher." Or inversely, in analytical
fashion, toward the "lower," relating the myth to the drives. But
since the drives are transferred from myth, traced from myth with the
                                          transformations taken into account. . . What we mean is that, startingfrom the same postulate, Jung is led to restore the most diffuse andspiritualized religiosity, whereas Freud is confirmed in his most rigorous
atheism. Freud needs to deny the existence of God as much as Jung needs to
affirm the essence of the divine, in order to interpret the commonly postulated
adequation.

 But to render religion unconscious, or the unconscious religious, still

amounts to injecting something religious into the unconscious. (And what would

Freudian analysis be without the celebrated guilt feelings ascribed to the

unconscious?)



58 ANTI-OEDIPUS

What came to pass in the history of psychoanalysis?


---------------------/////////////////////////////////