A verifiable empiric basis
It may seem strange to consider a series of paranormal phenomena as a valid empirical basis for any theory whatsoever. Yet the discovery of the fundamental relationship between Eros and development of psychic abilities brings a double factual basis for the psychoanalytic edifice, with all the consequences this can have on the entire theory.
The mere fact that the extrasensory development is closely linked to a certain way of living love can be drawn from the experience of natural rules concerning sexuality. Some behaviors that promote development, others hamper it. From the observation of these natural processes are gradually deduct the foundations of a “natural erotic morality”.
The distinction between natural and traditional moral morality is central to all reasoning supposed to explain the origin of frustration, suffering and psychic conflicts in general. All of psychoanalysis is therefore affected.
It can be provided, for example, that the prohibitions imposed by a natural moral cause no real frustration, as they do not hamper any real need. It is quite different prohibitions imposed by traditional morality much more arbitrarily, as they can prevent the achievement of essential natural instincts and jeopardize our whole personal evolution. So is it predictable, that they may induce conflicts and frustrations far more serious, as is the case in neurosis.
Similarly with regard to feelings of guilt: they certainly arise in both cases, that the conduct is stigmatized by the natural moral or traditional morality. But they will be much deeper in the first event, as they then echo harmful conduct. Conversely, a behavior frowned upon by traditional morals will put individuals in an awkward position in society, without necessarily putting him in disagreement with itself. Guiltiness feelings remain much more superficial.
The link between Eros and extrasensory immediately transforms the psychoanalytic conception of these two elements, which underpin much of the theory. The will of amorality displayed by Freud and his disciples gave way to a clear distinction between moral and immoral behaviors in relation to the natural potential of the human being. It becomes possible to expose all kinds of prejudices and stereotypes arbitrarily introduced by religious moralists and over the centuries. Similarly, all arguments concerning the guilt must be taken based on the fundamental distinction between social guilt and guilt primary.
The extrasensory function of Eros also challenges the two major Freudian topicals. The notion of the unconscious, conceived as place of origin of instincts and receptacle of experiences should be widened. As implied Jung with the notion of collective unconscious, the subconscious is also the place of Archetypes, arcana of transcendent knowledge, such as defining the Gnostic movement.
The three instances, the id, the ego and the superego, respectively representing the location of the drives, the executive body which takes decisions, and one where prohibited induced Education encode if they undergo the following changes:
– The id should be divided into two parts, one which generates the impulses from biological requirements, and one that generates or controls from the transcendent energy. Indeed, the sexual drive can only translate physiological requirements (eg after a washout period). But the “magical” relationship established during a genuine love can also power independently of the biological necessities (erotic impulses in women do not go outside the periods of ovulation and fertility as is the case in animals).
– We must distinguish the superego compliant prohibited either natural morality, or traditional morality. The first is consistent with the fundamental aspirations of being, while the latter do not have any guarantee of authenticity and can have harmful effects.
– As for the ego, responsible for figure out compromises between the requirements of the id and those of the superego, it can grow either harmoniously to match natural potentialities, either pathologically when torn between natural impulses and restraints not conform to nature. This explains the defensive components that parasitize the ego and eventually constitute the Ego and its paranoid features.
The very issue of the Oedipus complex, foundation of Freudian psychoanalysis, must be viewed from a different angle. Freud was looking for the factors responsible of the repression of infantile impulses. Objective reasoning requires rather to ask whether these impulses are by nature to play a role in the development of psychic abilities, and how to compensate for their removal.
Jungian psychoanalysis is also enhanced: Jung spoke of numinous energies related to Archetypes, and attributed neurosis to their repression under the pressure of a Reason become omnipotent. He did not have to endorse his claims only a few dreams, visions in some rare patients, or meaningful coincidences. The virtually unlimited number of possible paranormal manifestations through the natural development of psychic abilities allows a much better verification of his theories and understand the archetypal face of reality.
Reich’s approach, famous for his statements about orgone (energy as him at once biological, spiritual and orgasmic) proves also reinforced along with liable to revision. Reich seems not to have seen that this energy, he wanted to dissipate the clouds with a gun or accumulate in capacitors, is the origin of psychic abilities. All of his theses to be reviewed in this direction, including the function of orgasm that has been reduced to a banal process of mechanical tension / relaxation.
The explanation of the empirical relationship between Eros and paranormal faculties leads to questioning the entire psychoanalytic edifice. He brings to light a hitherto non-existent means to effectively check the various theoretical elaborations and therapeutic modalities.