Relevant theoretical basis
No theory built on a wrong basis can be relevant. It remains questionable, may lead to aberrant results and can’t be applied without major risks of error.
This is exactly what happened to classical psychoanalysis: the original axiom, postulating that the purpose of the non-procreative sexual instinct is mere pleasure, is a contradiction regards to the laws of evolution. It follows from the classic image of sexuality as source of pleasure and from the denial of extrasensory Freud and all the pioneers surrounding him had in common(except for Jung). It was impossible to assign to this strange instinct a transcendent purpose without getting in an awkward position facing science, which is what everybody wanted to avoid. Paradoxically, it is precisely this concealment that deprived psychoanalysis of the empirical basis without which building a scientifically sound theory.
Indeed, when one knows the purpose of an instinct, it is possible to explain its functioning and the consequences of good or bad performances. We can then talk about causes, effects, errors, disorder factors against a well-defined order. For example, if we know that the instinct of hunger is to building blocks for the body, we can explain the reasons of deficiencies and overloads, distinguish healthy and unhealthy diet, understand the causes of digestive or metabolic disorders , correct food hygiene, undertake all kinds of research on nutritional biochemistry, metabolism, etc. In short, make nutrition a science. However, if one takes the idea that the purpose of appetite mere pleasure of the mouth, we can at best develop an eating pleasure art – aka gastronomy – while passing by the essential. In this regard, psychoanalysis is a kind of sexual gastronomy…
Psychoanalytic discourse was developed to hide the incongruities that arise from this initial error. Unable to define what would be a natural psychosexual functioning, that is to say letting the sexual instinct reach his extrasensory purpose, all kinds of contradictions and gaps slipped into the theory, he had to justify with the means at hand. The most typical pirouettes is Freud saying that psychoanalysis was not intended as a means to change society, but solely as therapeutic means. That allowed him to avoid questioning morality and stay in tune with the social environment, but is in itself contrary to the scientific ethos he claimed to have. A scientific approach to the human psyche can not ignore morality, precisely because it determines psychic structuring.
Another example is the principle of analytic treatment, such as Freud formulated, returned to the emergence of traumatic contents related to the Oedipus repressed into the unconscious and then to consciously recognize that they could not be realized in the idea to empty their pathogenic contents. This principle was itself a workaround for the neurosis. The method per se was doomed to fail, because stigmatizing natural impulses (which is what the process amounts to) creates a new conflict between deliberate desires and unconscious innate data (so between th ego(with a little e !) and the Id). The effect, is to permanently destroy the magical dimension that adults should retain from childhood and compromise for good extrasensory development.
Psychoanalysis also manages with difficulty the theoretical problem of homosexuality. Sexual impulses keeping being conceived as belonging to a procreative process, any drive to a person of the same sex is equivalent to a deviation from the natural functions. The homosexual uses to seek pleasure, organs made to function in the heterosexual relationship, and even if tolerated, that behavior appears as an exception to natural laws. We must therefore look for the causes of this deviation in agonizing maternal or paternal images, and the more that we can do is tolerate homosexuals in the name of non-discrimination. The artistic qualities of many homosexuals are blamed on sublimation, therefore a special case of neuroses, obscuring any function that could have the Uranian Eros in the dynamism of creativity, as explained by Plato.
Jung also, in ignorance of the relationship between Eros and psychic has spawned an approach built on the denial of sexuality. He speaks, for example, the “dustbin of infantile sexuality.” His explanation of neurosis takes into account that the “numinous energy” repressed in his opinion under the influence of the cult of Reason that marks our society. Yet it remains unable to clarify the reasons of this cult and to restore the psychic abilities that would release these numinous energies.
This shows how ignorance of the psychic function of love and sexuality has sterilized the two major psychoanalytic currents. It is the same for all other schools. Unable to go back to the real causes of endemic neurosis, the central themes multiplied, without an unitary structure to gather them. The speech has become more complex over the decades (Lacan, for example), to the point that it became unintelligible to the “outsiders”. It also lacks a simple logic needed to found a sound approach to psychoanalysis during the school years. For the same reason the cures are endless, don’t meet the needs of the patient, unable as they are to go back to the root causes of their ailments.
Evolutionary Ecopsychology resumes psychoanalytic theories in what great they do have, while correcting the starting axiom. The imputation of a psychic function to romantic impulses then builds a coherent theory, in favor of a clear axiomatic as required by any scientific theory. Understanding of psychoanalytic theory is much more immediate, and the therapeutic results much faster, through the highlighting of the actual causes of the disorders.
Access to extrasensory messages, direct or interposed medium, sheds light on complex situations, to quickly discover their ins and outs. Archetypal energies fill the depressive void, heal old wounds and fill the heart with happiness and creativity. Love life found once again the breath of youth and give back to the daily life its relief and wonderful natural flavor…