1

INTRODUCTION

Midway through December of 1997 I flew to Vienna with the intent-ion of organizing some notes I had compiled earlier that year. Vienna,because it was here that Freud spent most of his professional life; andbecause my notes outlined a scientific explanation for Freud's neglecteddual-instinct conclusion: that the lives of humans consist solely of theinteraction between two opposing forces: creativity and destructivity.

I had anticipated that my transcription (for I do not claim authorshipof the words that follow) would take a week. It was only after a year anda half of wrestling with my native language that I was able to realize afinal product.

The book failed to generate significant interest in any of my acqu-aintances; and of the handful of professionals I'd contacted only onecommented - and only after prompting. The Freud museum in Viennaaccepted a copy and to my knowledge still retains it.

I kept the book handy for a few years and from time to time mademarginal notes. My intention to revise the work was never abandoned -but it wasn't until now, exactly 17 years later, that the opportunity arose togive this revision my undivided attention.

The text should be easy enough for all readers to follow (thoughthere is much between the lines for the explorer to discover). The absurd-ly simple principle itself can be found on page 16. Some parts of the exp-lanatory notes aren't so accessible; even so I would encourage the readerto battle through since the conclusion that follows offers a way out of thedilemma described earlier.

Martin Flaxman, Angeles City, Philippines, December 2014

____________________________

2

Look, ecco has become like Narcissus, And knows not when he is doing evil.

3

[Somewhere in time and space]

Specht: Darkbark calling StarArk do you read?Clerk: Loud and clear Specht. Anything to report?Specht: We're coming up on the event horizon of E318 sir.Clerk: Your assessment?Specht: Initial readings indicate a tentative category GG...fermion/boson

equilibrium stable, no detectable radiation, advanced entropic decay suggested. I doubt if anything more than imagination has ever escaped this blackie sir.

Clerk: Very well officer: report acknowledged. I'll pass the word down the line to give this one a wide berth. Inform gunnery we have a possiblepractice target. Call it a day Specht – better get your barque back to the Ark before you become an alien!

Specht: Sir?Clerk: Never mind, say... how was it that Beans described a cat GG?Specht: I believe he applied the characterization "gerbils on glue” sir.

[sound of a sudden disturbance: spluttering, glass breaking, choking followed by general confusion, indignant shouts, calls for medical assistance etc.]

Clerk: [between fits of convulsive laughter] Dammit, Specht, how you say that is funnier than the thing itself! Do you realize that you just disabled a Federation StarArk with three words?

Specht: We try our best sir! - evidently I've been underestimating the power of humour...

[pause]that's interesting...there's something registering on the radiation recorder...increasing gain...

Clerk: [Barely coherent] Please, one more time Specht, Beanz just came onto the bridge!

[silence]officer Specht?

Specht: Yes, I'm sorry sir...hm...that's most unusual. Request to register additional data.

Clerk: [regaining his composure] Ah...what's that?... ah...oh...very good...

4

please proceed officer.Specht: It appears a messenger particle, a boson, escaped at minus

E398 sir. Instruments show the existence of a major anomaly in one of its coded messages...scanning for more data ...searching ...ah, here we are: resistance to annihilating particle with same charge...apparently an unprecedented deviation from normal part-icle behaviour; and, as far as the underlying physics go, responsible for attracting mass speculation among particulate matter since.

[static over the radio]Clerk: [Off-handedly] It obviously knew something they didn't.Specht: Sorry sir, I didn't copy your last.Clerk: [shouting] I SAID: THEY OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T GET THE MESSAGE.Specht: Code twenty-two hundred: report ended. Now Beanz, in

compliance with the captain's request.

________________

5

EVOLUTION

“...nothing in biology makes sense except in the light ofevolution.”

Theodosius Dobzhansky

I am presuming the reader recognizes that psychology, especiallythat of modern humans, is an important branch of biology and as such issubject to the same principles that govern biological evolution. My presentthesis is based on the general biological and evolutionary characteristicsof all living organisms. For example: 1) Their unconquerable determination to survive and reproduce. 2) An ability to continuously evolve effective, often imaginative, surv-ival strategies.

3) A tendency to dominate, if not eliminate, those species not contr-ibuting to the first two characteristics

As a general rule species and their component organisms existbecause they have successfully adapted to, or otherwise negotiated, theparticular trials of life to which they have been subjected. Disease andpredation are examples. Ultimately, it is the subtle, passive processes ofnatural selection that dictate survival.

Some organisms were able to adapt more readily to changing envir-onmental conditions (those that did, dined). Others gained an evolutionaryedge by adopting a more effective defense strategy (those that didn'tdied). Then there were the opportunists, entrepreneurs, speculators andgamblers; and those whose Darwinian fitness permitted competition withothers for a particular evolutionary niche. Certainly, some individual members of species were more successfulplayers in the inevitable competition for food, nesting sites, mates etc.Generally, more assertive individuals were more likely to survive. Somespecies achieved existential superiority by virtue of an exceptional talentfor reproduction. Generally, more libidinally gifted species were more likelyto survive.

Some, all, or none of the above examples may, or may not, have

6

contributed to life on E318. The only certainty: no organism, once expired,can reproduce. Those that survive, may or may not chose to breed. Thosenot selected forego this option.

Of course all this may be irrelevant for those who share the beliefthat an omnipotent creator is at work. While no satisfactory evidence hasbeen produced to support this possibility, the powerful belief that such aparticle exists is a ubiquitous phenomenon. A belief, which, althoughresistant to scientific enquiry, finds ready sanctuary in the minds of manyscientists.

PSYCHOANALYSIS AND GOD

Psychoanalytical ideas may be resisted because they re-duce us to objects of ridicule: like the imprinted duckling whobelieves a rocking-chair to be its mother.

Recently I suggested to my mother that she might consider incorpor-ating a few psychoanalytical ideas into a thesis she is preparing for atheological degree. I was strictly joking. This suggestion was in part mot-ivated by the astonishment I experienced while thumbing through theOxford Textbook of Psychiatry. The references made to psychoanalyticaltheories appeared to be included for reasons more concerned with prof-essional etiquette than any real concession to their veracity.

In attempting to account for this apparent lack of insight I arrived atthe conclusion that Mr Freud's theories are considered politically incorrect.At least in Oxford. Later I speculated that psychoanalytical explanationsconcerning the operation of the human mind are being downplayed bec-ause they challenge the inviolable notion that we possess free will.

Later still I was surprised and intrigued to find that the Englishpsychologist Donald Winnicott had defined (the New Testament) God inpsychoanalytical terms.1 He saw God as:

"...the repository of the good aspects of self, which we need to project outward to protect from inner badness.”

It occurred to me that other features of the Christian faith may also

7

provide clues leading to insights into the nature of out mental processes.By following this line of enquiry I eventually arrived at the unexp-

ected conclusion that psychoanalysis actually proves the existence ofGod; or more accurately, explains and accounts for such an multi-omniedentity.

God (when in good health) I found to be the personification (elicitedby fear and the need for reassurance) of our instinct to protect, create andpreserve life. Onto this being intense goodness and love have been proj-ected. The belief that such a being exists was almost explained. But whythe stubborn, obsessional nature of this idea? And fear of what exactly?Death? Or that which threatens to kill? To kill from without? Or fromwithin? Why the sacrifice of so many lives in His name? Why the centraland unshakeable faith in His supreme power; and the idea that He contr-ols our destiny?

The Christian religion's main theme appears to be a symbolic yetaccurate portrayal of, and defense against, man's worst enemy: himself.An intrinsic problem accompanied our development as a species: how tokeep our bad tempered bodyguards, hatred and aggression, with theirinsidious and volatile natures, loyal to the cause.

PSYCHOANALYSIS AND WARFARE

Mr Freud, “after long hesitancies and vacillations” guardedly concl-uded that there existed only two basic opposing instincts: one creative, theother destructive.

After pondering this striking conclusion, the stubborn notion formedin my mind that, if there were too much destructivity (aggression) within uswe would inevitably destroy ourselves, and conversely, that if we were toopeaceful, we would lack the impetus to defend ourselves and eventuallybe destroyed by others.

If Mr Freud's reasoning were sound, I didn't feel it unreasonable tosuppose that there existed between the two instincts, a specific and logic-al relationship. Logical too it seemed, that for life to proceed in a dignified

8

manner, any given biological population must always grow slightly or riskextinction.

It could also be argued that extinction through military defeat couldbe best avoided by a slow but steady generational increase in aggression.While a dangerous strategy, staying in the evolutionary game is what mat-ters - any consequences could be dealt with later.

I theorized a stable libido-to-aggression ratio (LIAR) presuming it tobe in favour of the former and settled on an estimated 60/40.

My thoughts drifted to warfare. Why were we so intent on destroyingone another? History shows there is no distance too great if the promiseof combat lies ahead. Before mechanization this usually meant walking.Equipment was carried. The privations that primitive warfare must havedemanded challenge the imagination.

Of course, the young man off to war does not generally subscribe tothe theory of defeat: thoughts of victory and glory are in his mind; and alsothe convenient conviction that he is invulnerable. The desire for warappears to be a powerful drive. As one politician noted recently, “Oncetwo countries have decided to fight, there is little that can be done to stopthem.”

There are periods of time between wars (often referred to as peace-time) when little or no fighting occurs. During such times the illusion existsthat peace is the natural order of things; and that the last war was reallythe last war, and that peace and prosperity will prevail thenceforth.

During such times well-equipped, highly-trained, battle-ready fightingforces are maintained for defense purposes. And we see ourselves aspeace-loving, war-abhorring nations, and as dignified, eco-caring, human-right-defending individuals. Illusions that must be maintained at any cost.

Aggressive behaviour observed in the natural world, as seen in com-bat rituals for mating privileges, pecking order etc. does not generally res-ult in mortality. In this century, the millions who have perished as the resultof wars and purges various, do not appear to have been subtracted fromthe present total of the world's population. In fact, millions have beenadded.

9

It appears that man's aggressive expression is not limited by popul-ation sensitivity. If defense, and competition for evolutionary advantagewere the original purposes for aggressive tendencies, and the actualkilling of one's opponent at worst, optional, did man develop a procreativetalent enabling routine annihilation of other humans without affecting thebig picture population? This appears to be the case. The evolutionary ben-efits gained by those who eliminate rival members from their species areobvious, this development could have been predicted. My only question:what delayed its arrival? ________________________

I must now introduce the reader to the work of psychoanalyst, MsMelanie Klein (1882-1960)3

It may shock many to hear her claim that, during a baby's first sixmonths of post-uterine life, innate, sadistic impulses are felt toward themother. Similar feelings are then perceived by the infant to be emanatingfrom the mother and directed toward itself.

Not a healthy situation for either party. Nor have we heard the bab-ies' version of events. In defense of the infant I would like to suggest thatthe reverse is possible, and that such impulses came from the mother,and were reflected back to Melanie Klein. But let's continue with the offic-ial story. During this six months the baby gurgles, grins, hiccups and playspsychic eye-pong with a blissfully unaware and, we hope, baby-idealizing,mother. By the end of baby's first year, mother's goodness, love anddedication to baby 'bad' have won the day. Its devils, demons, gangsters,terrorists, rapists and drug dealers have all been rounded-up and imp-risoned (at least for the time being). Moreover, baby (now baby 'good')feels secure in the knowledge that it is wanted and loved; and knows foran absolute fact that 'good' mother is a far greater force to be reckonedwith than the 'bad' mother of its fantasies.

The reward for successfully completing this first year of life is anelement someone once described as “basic baby trust”. This state of mindis now fixed in place permanently by a psychic process known as intro-jective identification.

Should this identification with a powerful, ghost-busting mother fail

10

however, and baby somehow manages to identify with a 'bad' mother,then basic baby mistrust, low self-esteem and confusion will be the orderof baby's day.

______________________

Evolutionary logic suggests that the most important lessons of lifeare learned first.

It's difficult to avoid the suspicion that conflict, especially bloody war-fare, is an integral component, if not the secretion, of our emergence as aspecies. I propose the real reason wars have been such a popular featureof human history is because of their effectiveness in high-grading the pop-ulation in accordance with the principles of natural selection. But insteadof passive attrition of the least fit, active attrition of the least aggressive. If this is the case then ways of initiating conflict must be built into thesystem. Whatever their origin, the psychic developments of the first yearof life provide all the elements necessary for igniting warlike conflict. Theymay be precipitated quite readily by misunderstandings resulting fromreality distortions provided by a combination of paranoia, basic mistrust,and one of the most potent poisons known to exist: low self-esteem. Inn-ate hatred fans the flames of anger and rage which in turn fuel aggress-ion; and if one is unlucky enough to be taken prisoner they may discoverthat the sadism theoretically occurring in the first year of life is capable ofproviding poignant memories of their confinement.

We would like to believe that part of normal infant developmentinvolves the subjugation of these sadistic impulses by the good motherimprint. But humans raised by totally good mothers (and fathers) aren'tlikely to win wars. Whatever occurs between mother and child, the latter'sdestructive impulses, whether their own or inherited, are not destroyed,but secretly imprisoned. From now on should any slight to the ego be per-ceived, these long-forgotten, by now rebellious devils may be recalled byan outraged, indignant ego, then unleashed to protect us. Since destructive responses to personal threats and slights are con-sidered normal by most cultures, the conscience is able deny any breachof moral conduct.

______________________

11

Another question soon emerged: if tribal, ethnic or national survivalbecame a contest between gangs of thugs or armies, how was aggressionkept from reaching levels in excess of those levels of libido required toreplace those killed in action?

Abundant evidence exists to show that conflict is the inevitable resultof social interaction. If no international warfare is possible then how abouta civil war? Or a revolution perhaps? Any excuse will do: a rise in the priceof a staple is an old favourite. Cultural revolution, where the young arepitted against the old, or the uneducated teach the teachers, were invogue for a while. On a smaller scale, bitter industrial disputes are usuallyavailable. Gang and turf wars are popular among a younger, more hostilesegment of the population. For those of a less bellicose disposition, pol-itical rivalry and the struggle for social status offer attractive alternatives.Competition by way of trade and commerce is enormously popular andoffers financial rewards for sublimated aggression. Such competition alsopermits nations prohibited from warlike activity to participate. Socially app-roved sublimations are available in the form of sports. These offer a widevariety of aggression levels and are universally enjoyed. At the least host-ile end of the spectrum come card and board games, and like debate anddiscussion, represent a marriage between aggression and libido

The point I am belabouring here of course is that if our hostile urgescannot be engaged by an alien antagonist, there is no indication they dis-appear.

Evidence, (again in abundance) also reveals that when such hostileengagement is in progress, feelings of fellowship and national bonding areexperienced, and an inspirational unity of spirit emerges – and what dis-appear are most of the social and personal ills that afflict peaceful civil-ization. If I may now refer the reader to Mr Freud's pleasure principle, I willrest my case.4

Ultimately, the best and most aggressive fighting force will survive. Adefending force, representing a peace-loving culture, however well train-ed, cannot hope to defend itself effectively unless its combat troops are asmotivated as those of their opponents'. Or, if hatred is the core affect(emotion) of aggression, they possess as much of it. Hatred defends love.

12

Would it not follow therefore that for a libidinally committed culture tosurvive, the superior aggression necessary for its defense must itself bedefended against. And would not the absence of any other identifiableforce warrant the consideration of libido, or components thereof, as poss-ible contributors to, or even as the soul constituents of such a defense? If this is found to be the case would it not imply that the sum of such aculture's libidinal assets be greater than the sum of its aggressive liab-ilities? Would an increase in libido permit a corresponding increase inaggression?

I would like to call the following witnesses:

Bach, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Mendels-sohn, Weber, Strauss, Goethe, Schiller, Nietzsche, Rilke, Mann, Shop-enhauer, Hesse, Kafka, Luther, Gutenberg, Planck, Kepler, Spengler,Leibniz, Wolff, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Marx, Einstein, Brecht,Gluck, Wagner, Hindemith, Haeckel, Eckhart, etc.

EMPIRES AND CAPITALS IMPERIAL

During my modest travels around this globe I could not help noticingthat many millions of tons of rock had been painstakingly hewn, shapedand transported (sometimes for great distances); then sculpted, raisedand incorporated into shapes large and small, massive and monumental,and often of unaccountable beauty. Many of them the result of consider-able technical knowledge and innovation.

The larger structures were erected at the expense of prodigiousamounts of human labour. Such focused energy, imagination and persist-ence, have yet to be accounted for in evolutionary terms.

Many have made the observation that Mother Nature is a most frugalhousekeeper.

While contemplating these matters I created an imaginary army sent by a rich landowner to protect his borders.

This army after travelling many miles on foot was victorious; and

13

very hungry. Emboldened by, and drunk on this victory, they walked to thenearest village and ate it. In order that their trip not be entirely wasted theyalso removed some souvenirs. The soldiers took what the officers didn't.The officers took transportable wealth. Some with an eye for art took art. The men grew hungry again and ate another village. They looted and left.

Sometimes the occupation of territory was more organized. Skilledmetalworkers and engineers were moved to wherever their talents weremost needed. At first the manufacture of weapons must have been apriority. Skilled artisans in other fields were given assignments and movedaccordingly. As the years passed these skills were absorbed by the in-vading cultures. More territory was invaded; more souvenirs collected.Transportation became more organized. Back home the souvenirs accum-ulated. I had embarked on this imaginary campaign in the hope that I woulddiscover why memorable empires, founded on the spoils of war, typicallyconsolidated their stolen wealth by the construction of splendid and grand-iose capitals. This fact seemed inconsistent with the ethic upon which theywere built: destructivity, lots of it. The architecture alone, say of Athensand Rome, is remarkable enough, but consider the sculpture, philosophyand literature that were patronized. The armies left with aggression, andthe more they aggressed, the greater, more splendid, and more libidinizedtheir capitals became. Could it be that by stealing art they were actuallystealing libido? And by so doing somehow compensating for, or controllingtheir destructive impulses? How would this prevent the hate upon whichthese marvelous capitals were built from being directed internally once thewhole world had been conquered? Were there other factors involved? Iwas stumped.

I abandoned the idea. It was some three weeks before I realized theobvious.

____________________

14

THE CAVALRY PRINCIPLE: we must kill or grow ill

“As you surely must know, I speak with extensive, irref-utable knowledge of some of the mechanics of circumcision,acquired in the days of my betrothal to Michal, when I wentmerrily sauntering down from the hills with my nephew Joaband a band of stouthearted singing volunteers to collect thosehundred Philistine foreskins to pay to Saul in exchange for her.It takes six strong Israelites, we figured, to circumcise one livePhilistine. The job turned easier after I got used to the idea ofkilling the Philistines first."

Joseph Heller5

The evolutionary essence of (civilized) man would appear to consistprimarily of defenses against a deeply-rooted aggressive drive. Charact-erized by destructiveness, and potentiated by hatred, this drive is used tomaintain constant and obligatory conflict the essential feature of which isthe sacrifice of human life

The convergence of two evolutionary realities can account for thisdevelopment. The first: the logical result of selection over eons which fav-oured what probably began as humble assertiveness; and the second: afecundity and survivability which allowed free indulgence in the novelty ofkilling merely for convenience.

Today, this destructive potential remains sullenly where it originated:in the unconscious. There it struggles ceaselessly with archaic libido. Thelatter, having accumulated several billion years worth of air miles, has wonfor its executives a permanent upgrade to the newly-created businessclass: the conscious mind (only God travels first class). Knowledge ofaggression's existence is resolutely repressed. This allows the belief topersist that we are all goodness, and that badness comes only from out-side.

Toxic levels of animosity are avoided by a venting mechanism: wegive them away; i.e. attribute them to others. We project them onto thevillains of our myths and movies in fantasy, and onto real or imagined ad-versarial others in reality. Unfortunately, these others often return thecompliment and the result: the synthesis of an agent well-known as apotent promoter of human conflict: mutual mistrust.

15

The inevitable result of this competition for aggressive superioritywas the selection for survival of those who could most quickly, pre-emptively if necessary, deliver the most destructive blow. The increasingamounts of aggression generated by two foes en route to a final battle (inwhich only one gets to live, and only maybe, reproduce) were at somepoint destined to impinge on the libido necessary for continued survival.Final victory was meaningless if libido was also destroyed. The latter mustalways win the last battle if the species was to endure. As libido hadlearned that to play aggression's game was to invite disaster, we found,indeed find, ourselves on the horns of a dilemma – or to use a more appr-opriate metaphor: on the wings of a cruise missile.

If an evolutionary biologist having a bad day were asked to proposea purpose for the unconscious mind they might reply: to organize anddeploy in timely fashion the instincts that make life possible. If they werethen asked to provide a reason for the development of conscious aw-areness (which, given its embarrassingly limited scope might be moreaccurately described as unconscious unawareness) they are unlikely toreply: to further the interests of the unconscious. But how could it beotherwise? I posit that our conscious mind was born only to serve ourinstincts and nothing else, despite how we are informed by our affects(feelings) – for they too are in on it.4

As has been suggested, our affects may serve as a means of comm-unication dependent on non-verbal cues (body language for example).What is more likely is that they distort, yet define 'reality' – a separate,expedient reality, I submit, in the service of the instincts.

The free will question might better be reworded: why do we have theillusion of free will? At least two possible answers exist. The first; if lifewere a game, say, an evolutionary game between our two opposing inst-incts, then whoever took the game the most seriously would stand a betterchance of winning. The second: it would be difficult to summon up warlikefeelings against a foe who were not responsible for their actions.

This two part principle describes a simple yet paradoxical relation-ship between libido and aggression. It implies that every major thrust ofhuman thought and action will be found, ultimately, in some way, to be an

16

expression of this principle.Part one states that modern man has inherited an aggressive drive

which if not neutralized by way of physical or psychological conflict withothers will be turned against its owner.

Part two states that the defensive increase of life-promoting agents(libido), engendered by such conflict will accommodate if not invite, a corr-esponding increase in aggression.6

As a consequence of part one this drive has risen to, and maintainedat or about, its theoretical limit: the point at which libido’s superiority ischallenged - the point at which it becomes self-destructive. Stepping be-yond this point means risking extinction. Staying behind it may meanlosing the battle; and risking extinction.

If the reader is in a room with a television they may wish to switch toa channel airing a film. It will likely illustrate the point. Aggression, symbolized by tyrants and sinners various, will be strug-gling with libido as represented by supermen, starship captains, cops andheroes of every variety. The final scenes will likely depict a confrontationbetween our two opposing forces which threatens extinction of the goodguys. When all hope must sensibly be abandoned, an unexpected (butentirely predictable) advantage will decisively save the day in favour of thehero or 'she'ro (who not only represent 'we'ro, but also the ideal dual-driverelationship: safe savagery! serving sex). Thus the 'good' victors will havebeen cinematically selected for survival and the 'bad' losers, censoredabsolutely.

Scenes of love-making and brutality are good for sales. Sometimesthe hero is martyred in order that the force of goodness be saved. Moreoften he gets to interface libidinally with the young and nubile heroine. Thegreater the suspense, and the more skilfully it is portrayed, the more ourenjoyment. The car chases and nick of time escapes rarely fail to thrill us.This scenario is depicted over and over again with unrelenting predictab-ility; we never tire of it. For it activates and allows us to experience infantasy that unconscious drama which makes us human. It also reconf-irms that which must constantly be confirmed in order for us to survive:that good always overcomes evil. The latter must be allowed and enc-ouraged to approach the former as closely as it dare. The closer to thatpoint where goodness must capitulate, the greater our satisfaction.

17

Aggression is again nudged up a notch but love still reigns supreme.Better prepared, we survive to fight again.

Few people are unfamiliar with the final scenes of many Westernswhere our good, pioneering selves, in a valiant attempt to protect ourinnocent families and aspirations, find themselves surrounded and on theverge of being decimated by a band savage bad selves (unfairly repres-ented by a tribe of North American Indians). Just at the all hope must beabandoned point, the most powerful ally of libido is heard in the distance.Is it an illusion? Can it really be? It is heard again; more clearly this time; afanfare. Miraculously, and at the last possible moment, out good selvesare rescued from certain death by the awesome power of safe savagery inthe saddle. The invincible power of libido in the guise of equestrian equ-alizer is once again asserted, ratified and then internalized as supremelyGood, and Just and Right. Our bad selves are smashed, routed and driv-en into the hills.

This image is imprinted on the minds of millions of us, and repres-ents the skeleton, in symbolic form, of the human psyche. Fundamentallythis is all we are. Our faiths, fears, dreams and hopes: merely symbolsthat embellish the operation of a simple evolutionary inevitability

For life to continue libido must always be (and be seen to be) a gre-ater force than aggression - but only by a hair. Constant conflict exercisesand improves the effectiveness of this hostility but in doing so constantlythreatens to extinguish the life force – like a parasite destroys its host.Aggression has to be lucky once - libido has to be lucky all the time. Thisis man's plight, and the result of this strategy.

Now it maybe appreciated why the word 'good' (representing libido)stems from the same root as the word God. And why God (representinglibido in person) is systematically worshipped.

Those who prayed, stayed and played; Those who strayed soon wished they'd prayed.

For without this obsessive-compulsive, ritualistic deification of the lifeforce, the death force may one day win a single battle, and thus the war. Defeat of libido will mean the end of everything. And if God represents this

18

life force in person, then he most certainly rules our lives.

Unfortunately another God sits close by fuming at this injustice: OldTestament Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts (standing armies) - the God whoengineered his people's last victory - and savioured them from slaveryonce again.

LOVE AND HATE

"We must love or grow ill."Freud

Whether George Orwell and Mr Freud encountered each another onthe streets of Hampstead Heath, London, is unknown to me. Their resp-ective, related ideas of doublethink and denial, help explain how we areable to disavow, and dismiss and vestigial, our (regrettable) hostility whilethe evidence of everyday life, or death rather, clearly demonstrates an on-going and ego-pleasing propensity for such feelings. The morbid contentsof our newshours, films and video games have become our daily bread. Itwould appear there's a holy ghost in the machine.

According to some psychoanalytical theories, the twins, hatred andaggression, are the first of the instinctual drives to appear. Other theoriesclaim that newborns arrive in a state of balance – undivided into good andbad halves – undifferentiated. But how can proponents of the former viewbe sure babies aren't copying the divided example of their carers? Thesilence of the lambs is deafening.

Let's assume that, undivided they're born, and at some point, dividedthey fall. At this point hate and aggression may be likened to an inoper-able and malignant tumor of the brain: it can't be cut out, only containedby constant and vigilant defenses (listening to music for example). Leftuntreated, the next phase, aggressive advance of the tumor follows. Otherorgans are made to suffer. If the condition is still ignored their destructionis attempted. Total annihilation of everything good is hate's wish. But first,everything good must be devalued and made to share in its suffering.

19

The projection of both drives onto external objects or ideas allows usto deny that the ongoing struggle between love and hate resides within us.This process produces the mythologies and religions of the world; andallows love to be idealized - its opposite demonized. Religions bond large numbers of strongly motivated individuals whoshare an unassailable faith and a common aim: to pacify their God. Asreligions grow and become more organized they become more powerful.This renders them susceptible to corruption. Religious zeal vindicates theforced conversion and victimization of non-believers; and permits bothinstincts to be served simultaneously. Thus religion becomes the bipolarpartner of war.

The creative drive possesses enormous impetus. This is the GreatPyramid of Khufu: the ultimate in creative statements. Weighing-in at sixand a half million tons, it was indestructible – four and a half thousandyears ago. And for most of that time its existence has been a humiliationfor the forces of destruction. It wasn't until Alfred Nobel set the stage forthe mother of all bangs that these forces saw a nucleus of hope forrevenge. It is among the passive members of the creative instinct, as repres-ented by art, science and all learning, where one may find the wise men ofthe world. They will avoid being seduced into sustained conflict with hate,for they understand well its nature and know well its weaknesses. It is asex-president Mr Nixon stated:

"Others may hate you. Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."

Hatred and its lackey, low self-esteem, are well-known troublemak-ers. Together they loiter in the dark alleyways of the unconscious; and waitfor victims. Low self-esteem is egged-on by hate, unconcerned, or unaw-are, that it is being exploited.

Hatred is its own worst enemy; while contained, its own tormentor.There is rages in the knowledge that it was created only to protect itsarch-enemy, love; by which it is outclassed, and for which it has nothingbut contempt. Hatred fears poetry, fears indifference. It fears harmony, hu-mour, and the loss of its power to emasculate. But what it fears most arethose who would transform it to beauty. Beauty that can be seen, sung or

20

recited. Beauty that may one day be understood to be hate, that throughartistic expression has been converted to love – libidinal energy whichaccumulates to nourish and protect present and future lives – a threadthat will lead the artist to the light: a universal lifeline and a swelling spoolof creativity, spun from the dead carcasses of deceit. But before the day of that dread humiliation (if indeed it ever comes),hatred must live with the humiliation of being trapped; and with the real-ization that it cannot escape without destroying itself. But this does notmean that it will not try, or ever stop trying.

We are born of love and hate and already ill: we must love or growworse.

LIBIDO AS A DEFENSE AGAINST AGGRESSION

Having presented the reader with a logical explanation for the pers-istent idea that a being exists who is defined by: “recognition on the partof a believer of some higher unseen power as having control of his dest-iny, and being entitled to obedience, reverence and worship" I must nowreturn to the matter of how aggression is prevented from overpoweringlibido. To resume my discourse on imperial capitals (I left this subject somepages ago unresolved): if the reader recalls, I had posed the question:why were imperial capitals, from which emanated organized, institut-ionalized hostility, invariably transformed into magnificent Meccas in thegrandest style?

I had tendered the surmise that creative agents - stolen, or collectedin the form of tribute - were used somehow to prevent a violation of thelaw implicit in the cavalry principle: i.e. (imperial) aggression, while beingmaintained at or about, must not exceed the point at which the integrity oflibido is compromised.

I propose the following scenario. As the national armies pushed forw-ard, conquering more territory, the aggression necessary for this advance,advanced accordingly. In other words the inhabitants back home becameless and less aware of the hostile and vicarious theft that permitted the opulence of their lifestyle. Such matters strayed farther and farther fromtheir minds, as did any matters of conscience. The spoils of decades of

21

theft accumulated and luxury was the style to which they became accust-omed. Trade prospered, influence spread, wealth was consolidated Theseproceeds were used to construct the marvels that today attract tourists bythe thousands. However, such proceeds were also transmitted to futuregenerations by their investment in the construction and staffing of schools,hospitals, museums and libraries. Every branch of knowledge and art waspatronized; new ones were introduced. These capitals became influentialcentres of culture and technology; they attracted the greatest minds theworld could produce by way of teaching positions and research grants.Learning, wisdom and philosophy became their ethos; philanthropy theirethic. The aggression responsible for all of this was now far away and thatwhich returned, returned sanitized. War became engagement, and defen-sive measures were only reluctantly sanctioned to protect trade routesand national interests. As the euphemisms multiplied the truth faded. Thefact the such interests had originally been acquired by force had longbeen forgotten. For the thieves had long since passed on. Now a newgeneration ruled the land, confident of their rights and privileges by way ofan assumed national and personal pride. Steeped in the libidinal agents oflearning and artistic creativity these descendants flourished - for awhile.

For until the dark energy hidden in the vacuum is found and faced,and the whistle blown on the electron, such defenses are only temporary.Hate will continue to smoulder in the unconscious until it can trick us intofurther conflict.

____________________

22

LIBINIZATION ENABLES REARMING

"I myself have always advocated the love for mankind notout of sentimentality or idealism but for sober, economic reas-ons: because in the face of our instinctual drives and the worldas it is I was compelled to consider this love as indispensablefor the preservation of the species as, say, technology."

Freud

The second part of the cavalry principle states that an increase inemnity is permitted by an increase in amity. How can this be?

The answer again is obvious. For with the knowledge thus gained,and the technological advances thus made, aggression may be upgradedin two ways. An increase in the understanding of the natural world (in theareas of agriculture and medicine for example) will allow more life to livelonger, and with more leisure: so pushing back the point of no return.Technological advances mean lighter, faster, stealthier, deadlier, more de-structive weapons. The increase of more resilient life inadvertently allowsand provides the means to destroy it. The neck and neck relationship between our two instinctual drivesremains unchanged.6

For better or worse, knowledge is power. And so the cycle continues:we kill, we compensate, we comprehend. Now we can kill more. However,to survive, we must love more; but in loving more we find ourselves know-ing more.

Out hatred and destruction, love and creativity are born.

Did libido shoot itself in the technological foot when man discovered,then immediately exploited the destructive forces latent in the atom? Apyramid is now a mere skittle. What demonstration of the indomitability ofliving growth can possibly survive the explosive consequences of the sim-ultaneous smashing of every atom in the universe? The Big Bang?!

GOD AND GRANDIOSITY

"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and all philosophy.

23

Whoever understands my music will be freed from the tormentsthat afflict other men my brother."

Beethoven

While I have never spoken with a psychoanalyst, the little I haveread of his subject is sufficient to allow my presumption that the phenom-enon of grandiose behaviour is familiar to all such professionals. Is it notthe word grandeur that comes to mind when one thinks of any of thedozens of cultural centres (or their remnants) - the legacies of empires -that are to be found around this planet. Magnificence and splendor,beauty combined with technical achievement, the stamp of dedicationalloyed with an incomprehensible motivation are some of the hallmarks.

To continue in rhetorical style I would also ask the reader: why is itthat monarchs past and present (and their modern day equivalents),whose power was originally acquired by bullying and territorial greed,often display the aura of supreme benevolence? An air of entitlement, oran assumed ennoblement may be seen in others. Traditionally, the powerover life and death lay in their hands. To offend: 'off with his head'. Whythe titles Apostolic Majesty, Her Royal Highness, Your Worship, YourHighness etc? Why the medieval monarch's belief that they ruled by div-ine right - by the grace of God?

After terrorizing his people into submission, the ruthless rebel leadersuddenly sees himself as their saviour, and assumes the rights of God.The worse he becomes the better he believes himself to be.

Having not examined this phenomenon sufficiently to discuss it atlength, and nearing the end of my narrative, I am leaving, interspersedamong my concluding paragraphs, some additional, related questionsupon which the reader may wish to reflect.

Consider those bodyguards within us; forever alert and poised foraction; their hostile dispositions reflecting the quality of the parental lovewe received as infants. This love will subdue innate hostility; lack thereof,reinforce it. Babies poisoned by unsubjugated aggression will as adults find themselves parasitized by pernicious private devils. Only the omnip-otent have no need of protection. Would not our only hope of internalpeace therefore lie in an attempt to get closer to this perfect, all good and

24

loving God (Lord libido) by acquiring his attributes, by imitation, or even bythe attempt to become him?

One suspects that on some level Beethoven understood well thehatricidal potency of music; and that inner peace is possible only after theexorcism of all hatred. Should love fail as a regulator: music (psycho-logically safe, aural sex) also "has charms to soothe the savage breast".Charms Beethoven championed.

Music, with it's harmonies and discords, evolved along with otherinstruments of libido via the patronage of religion and royalty (libido infancy dress). Etymologically, the word is derived from the Muses of Greekmythology: the daughters of Zeus, and the inspirers of learning and thearts. For some, Zeus symbolizes the supreme deity; (for psychologists: acharacter disorder).

Are not the most magnificent examples of man's creativity and ach-ievement his houses of God – his palaces, pyramids, mosques and cath-edrals? And would not the final expression of the destructive instinct(Thanatos) and the pleasure principle meet in a place some refer to asheaven? However, until Eros relinquishes his hold on libido, the anxietyproduced by the cavalry principle can be alleviated safely only by movingcloser to life's powerful creative core. And if life is libido, and libido, God -whose temple is not a monument, but a state of mind free from mech-anical spectres, hated tormentors, and all contaminants odious - as hasbeen noted by others, man patterns his external world on his unconsciouswishes and instinctual demands - does not Vienna, as one example, forall its beauty, music and grandeur, simply represent a heavenly attempt todefend against self-destructive imperial ambition?

And in so doing, represents for us all, a superhuman, but vain att-empt to rid ourselves of that dilemma whose denial defines and condemnsas a species.

_________________________

25

EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CONCLUSION

1) Donald Woods Winnicott was born in 1894 in Plymouth, England.From 1923 until 1962 he worked at the Paddington Green Children's Hos-pital in London. For twenty-five years he was on the training staff of theBritish Psychoanalytic Society, serving at various times as president andphysician-in-charge of the Child Analysis Department. For many years hehosted a series of popular radio talks on child psychology for the BBC.Winnicott's work stemmed from his long term observations of mothers andbabies as a pediatrician. He died in 1971.

2) Freud saw civilization as:

"...a process in the Service of Eros, whose purpose is tocombine single individuals, and after that families, then races,peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind.But man's aggressive instinct, the hostility of each against alland all against each, opposes this program of civilization. Thisaggressive instinct is the derivative and the main representativeof the death instinct which we have found alongside of Eros andwhich shares world domination with it. And now, I think, themeaning of the evolution of civilization is no longer obscure tous. It must present the struggle between Eros and Death,between the instinct of life and the instinct of destruction as itworks itself out in the human species. This struggle is what alllife essentially consists of and the evolution of civilization maytherefore be simply described as the struggle for life of thehuman species. And it is this battle of the giants that our nurse-maids try to appease with their lullaby about Heaven." (SE,XX1.112)

The following passage from a biography by Anthony Storr (1989)represents an establishment view of Freud's claim.

"Who would have supposed that a doctor striving to comprehendthe neuroses of the Viennese upper class would have derived

26

from his researches so majestic a concept of the human cond-ition? Freud's pursuit of the byways of sex and aggression hasbecome transmuted into a cosmic vision of opposing forces ofgood and evil. Freud wrote the passage just quoted someseventeen years after his parting with Jung. If the two had con-tinued to collaborate, Freud might have recognized that hisportrayal of Eros and Death as giants locked in perpetualcombat is what Jung would have called an 'archetypal' vision.Whether or not such a vision is true is another matter. It hasnothing to do with science."

3) Melanie Klein, like Donald Winnicott, worked with children. As cont-emporaries in London each followed separate but not disparate pathswhile exploring the new psychological territory revealed by the investig-ations of Freud. Ms Klein was born in Vienna in 1882. In training she wasencouraged to specialize in the analysis of the young. She worked withdisturbed children who in the face of developmental difficulties hadregressed to an earlier, non-verbal phase of infancy. She was the first torecognize the psychological importance of the earliest mother-child rel-ationship.

4) The pleasure principle is a concept of Freud's in which he saw theconscious motivation of the ego as reflecting unconscious instinctualdrives – and pleasure as the reward for our satisfying them. Simply put, hesaw pleasure as a kind of narcotic carrot used by biology to ensure lifekeeps to whichever evolutionary path is being selected for at the time.

Later however, in attempting to explain the repetitive, self-defeatingbehaviour he often observed in his patients, Freud developed (not withouttrepidation) the dual instinctual drive hypothesis described above. Alth-ough unpopular, it has not been demonstrated to be incorrect – merelyunpopular. It was rejected by the vast majority of his disciples, who, wemust note, were unable to provide satisfactory alternative explanations.

In defense of Freud's methods I offer the following lines from hisBeyond the Pleasure Principle:

"It may be asked whether and how far I am myself convinced

27

of the truth of the hypotheses that have been set out in thesepages. My answer would be that I am not convinced myself, and that I do not seek to persuade other people to believe inthem. Or, precisely, that I do not know how far I believe inthem." (SE XV111.59)

Humility thy name is Sigmund. Freud worked with these ideas from1920 until his death in 1939; and while not particularly delighting in thembecame more and more convinced of their truth.

Stripped of its denials and distractions, civilization may be seen ashaving grown from bursts of creative energy that restored the balancebetween our two competing drives.

Alternatively, and with knowledge acting as a catalyst, civilizationmay be seen as an inflationary escalation of a feud life started: how dare itattempt to organize Chaos! Then add insult to injury by renaming itCosmos (harmony). Civilization is not quite the great leap forward wewould have it be. However, with knowledge it may recover, maybe it couldbe.

To casually dismiss or directly reject Freud's views on this subject issurely to impugn his sanity; and to deny him his civil rights. We all knowFreud was wrong, but how can anybody be that wrong? And for that long?His idea of aggression as being derived from a 'death instinct committedto the principle of universal inertia', I admit, seemed to me at first, extreme(and his grim modifier - death – certainly not calculated to inspire theinterest of those committed to the principle of avoiding it). However, whenevidence for began to accumulate, I soon succumbed to the logic that ourtwo drives, in the course of their altercation, would through randommutation inevitably avail themselves of the physical forces of which theyare composed; and if both survive (and if this weren't already so),eventually align themselves with respect to two ultimate forces which arein equilibrium ultimately.

After all, if the humble eel can make effective use of magnetism.....there may be special significance in the Fall of an apple.

28

5) My unconscious reason for quoting this passage from Joseph Heller'snovel God Knows may well be the same as the author's unconscious rea-son for writing it: to render acceptable, through humour, the unacceptable- to describe how decadent our regard for each other can, and has, bec-ome. It was later I recognized its oedipal connotations. For the readerunacquainted with the Oedipus complex I offer some explanatory material.

Freud describes a stage of development in which the male child bet-ween the ages of 2 1/2 and 4 competes with his father for his mother as asexual partner. His thoughts come to dwell on a wish to castrate, and inextreme cases, kill his father. Feeling thus, he makes the presumption thatshould his father discover his incestuous desires, he will become theobject of the same surgical procedure, and if his case extreme, be killed.Fear of these mutilations usually precipitates a resolution. He settles for acompromise. He rationalizes (and this is my interpretation) that if hebecomes exactly like daddy then maybe when he grows up he can findsomeone exactly like mummy (Freud's version is limited to a paternalidentification only). It's the best he can do under the circumstances andhis genitals remain connected. The reverse identifications are formed inthe little girl, but in her case fear of castration is not the resolving factor. Itwas Freud's view that emotional problems occurring later in life are usu-ally a consequence of a failure to satisfactorily resolve this conflict.7

The preceding account is unlikely to be the whole oedipal story. Thecomplex is reported to have been found to occur in all cultures and thereis no reason to suppose it is restricted to the lives of humans (does itoccur it apes?). There is probably more to be discovered, more to be int-erpreted and, no doubt, some to be reinterpreted. The discovery of this astonishing example of psychic engineering isattributed to Freud, who stated that:

"The reactions against the instinctual demands of the Oedipuscomplex are the source of the most precious and sociallyimportant achievements of the human mind; and this probablyholds true not only in the life of individuals but also in thehistory of the human species as a whole."

29

An enterprising assertion, to boldy make, for one given to reserve.

The ultimate purpose of this unconscious drama is, presumably, toenable a successful union between male and female to be repeated manyyears later by a new generation - what worked once stands a better thanrandom chance of working again. Also, it would seem to follow that theattracting force employed to facilitate the original genesis would need tobe applied in an similar manner.

Reproductive success, by evolution, does not unnoticed go.

6) Evolutionary biologists call this arms race scenario where no onegets ahead the Red Queen Hypothesis (after Lewis Carrol's Red Queenwho had to keep running just to stay in one place). Such situations arisebetween parasites and hosts. This hypotheses is thought by some toexplain why sexual reproduction exists (unbelievably, we don't know). Aparasite has never been identified however - since it is assumed to bephysical possibly

7) Some may wish to ponder the exact nature of these oedipal leg-acies. Our physical specifications, being products of our parents' com-bined genetic codes, cannot be altered. What remains malleable is ourmentality, the way we move, and the attitudes we assume when stat-ionary. Expressed slightly differently, and with some amplification: ourbehaviour, what motivates it, and what motivates us to withhold behaviourpromised.

Few would disagree with the view that we are complex structures. Ifbehaviour can be seen to be a product of the mind, hence the brain, whatparental qualities exactly, found in this grey mass of complexity, are takenaboard by the oedipally identifying child to be claimed as its own? Aresome qualities targeted and others ignored? Is there a hierarchy of mostpreferred to least? Are the identifications made instantly, like photographs;or absorbed slowly over time? Or both? Do they represent general par-ental impressions, or specific parent-child relationships, in specific circ-umstances? Would a child who has been separated from a parent, inreaching out for a connection, make an identification on the basis of whatthey are told about them?

30

Much time may be saved by restricting our search to what makessense in the light of evolution. The cavalry principle provides a simple for-mula which can account for the complex, contradictory behaviour of hum-ans. To review this briefly: aggression through selection has evolved to erron the side of excess – and always exert pressure. The resulting anxietycan be relieved in two basic ways. By consuming the instinct throughwarfare (the Alexandrian tradition), or by writing a poem about it (theHomeric). Both exacerbate the problem: for violence, as we know, merelybegets more violence; and poetry, in dignifying it, endorses it. Such circ-umstances have enabled aggression to become so formidable a weapon itnow controls us. So distorted has the battle for survival come to be thatwhat was once just an arms race has become an arts race too: those whocreate more (subjugate more aggression), get to destroy more.

It is possible the identifications we are attempting to define contributeto this state of affairs. For whatever serves the strategy serves the cause.

An additional clue may be divined from Mr Dhobansky's observation.If we accept that an organism's enduring characteristics must somehowenhance the survival of its genetic code, then what appears to be path-ological may in fact be merely logical, when seen in the light of evolution.

For billions of years animals have preyed on other animals. First inthe oceans, then on the beaches. Then among the grasses and trees ofprehistoric savannahs and forests. Even at this moment, even as I write,in the crawl spaces of our basements and behind the refrigerators of ourkitchens, predator and prey make contact. One of them, with sensesstrained and focused, is reflecting upon one of the most asked questionsin biology: Is this animal, I see before me, planning to eat me? The other(well acquainted with the tricks and tactics of disguise and deception)ponders another frequently asked question: Does this thing, I plan to eat,comprehend the term deceit?

Let us suppose an order of importance exists for out oedipal impr-essions, but instead of a most preferred quality heading the list, one whichis mandatory. A quality that has always had precedence over others; oneessential for survival in the forever changing spy versus spy world of predator versus prey. This quality - the first to season the primordial stew

31

of life and the last to garnish each species distilled from it - findsthe sluggish, random nature of conventional selection unsuitable for itspurposes. The ability to sense hostile intent has found a quicker, moreflexible way to maintain its effectiveness.

Such an ability would prove doubly useful in a system constrained byduality: if no hostility can be detected, what's left must be pure libido -God. If he is absent, aggression and someone else must rule. In otherwords, by detecting the presence and strength of a single variable, thepresence and strength of its opposite can be inferred. As a fitting illustration let us examine the word hamlet. [Shakespeare's autobiographical play, Hamlet, as a tragedy, is deemedcomparable only to the play King Oedipus (club foot) written some twothousand years earlier by Sophocles. The Greek drama became a softfocus for German nineteenth century intellectual thought and lead toFreud's discovery of the oedipus complex and the founding of psycho-analysis.]

Hamlet, the play, has long been deemed to express a 'central probl-em': why does Hamlet (the character) hesitate to avenge his father'sdeath? What is Shakespeare telling us?

My dictionary defines hamlet thus: a group of houses or small villagein the country; esp. a village without a church.

Shakespeare's England bristled with churches. Religion was part ofdaily life. Church attendance was required by law and those failing in thisrespect were seen as souls at risk - potential or actual sinners, lured fromthe flock by temptation. Absentees were called to account, and possiblyfined. Persistent absenteeism (as became the habit of the poet's father)was duly noted.

The cavalry principle explains religions in general as psycho-culturaldevices designed to prevent our bad selves from overpowering our goodselves (while at the same time instilling in its followers a fanaticism cal- culated to result in conflict). With this is mind it is difficult to resist the sus-

32

picion that Hamlet (the character) is so named because he too waswithout (the protection of) a church - that his aggressive drive (seen in hisintention to commit murder in the first degree) had his fair judgementdisplaced.

[The word hamlet, in my shorter Oxford Dictionary, can be traced throughhamel, to hamble: to walk lame; and thence to hammel: castrated sheep.]

The reader who has made it thus far I doubt will feel unduly dist-urbed by my suspicion that each of us is (albeit unconsciously) acutelysensitive to the presence and degree of unsubjugated aggression inothers; especially if it is similar to our own. This sense (which may accountfor the importance we attach to first impressions), I suspect is embeddedin the deepest layers of our psyche - set down long before the uncon-scious mind ever dreamt there could be a conscious interpreter.

My investigations have persuaded me that the ultimate object of oed-ipal identification is to fix within the child a pattern to be followed wheninteracting with future significant others. Derived from parental interactionand example, this pattern is composed of a blend of the parents' opposingdrives. As British poet laureate Philip Larkin so bluntly expressed it:

They f--- you up your parents;

They don't mean to but they do:

They give you all the faults they have,

Then add some just for you.

(The bonus referred to at the end ensures that aggression is alwaysincreasing generationally)

Evidence, inference and intuition combine to reinforce my conclusionthat this pattern is a condition for survival; and that its re-expression, inthe parental context to which it is bound, is a drama we are oedipally

33

bound to repeat - "a divinity which shapes our ends".

I move Mr Freud be deemed oedipally correct in attributing the imp-ortance he did to the reactions against the instinctual demands of thecomplex he discovered. For I believe it is at this point in our development,that, against our toddler wills, parental anger and inattention get bakedinto our toddler psyches and stamped OK (the resulting conflict is sent tothe basement to incubate as mental illness). How we negotiate this con-flict, and accommodate its aftermath, I’ve concluded, provide a mechan-ism that permits our two drives to be rebalanced each generation - (oncewe realize we know not what we do).

In other words, the reactions elicited by the oedipus complex allownot only for the inheritance of acquired dual-drive characteristics, but alsofor the disinheritance of any that have become counterproductive.

To the point, (and somewhat poetically):

Hostility (theoretically), can oedipally, inhibited be.

I will leave the reader with Hamlet’s words - (his comment onlearning that Norway and Poland were going to war over worthless terr-itory):

Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats

Will not debate1 the question of this straw,2

This is th’imposthume3 of much wealth and peace

That inward breaks, and shows no cause without

Why the man dies. I humbly thank you sir.

1settle, 2minor issue, 3abcess