Carrol Cox wrote:
> I consider Ted's ideas on psychology not so much wrong as not
> worth discussing. I wonder if we can find a common ground which will
> enable us to state our disagreements. I could perceive no common ground
> in his post on Freud/Klein etc.
"We murder to dissect."
"when your longings center on things such
that sharing them apportions less to each,
then envy stirs the bellows of your sighs.
But if the love within the Highest Sphere
should turn your longings heavenward, the fear
inhabiting your breast would disappear;
for there, the more there are who would say 'ours,'
so much the greater is the good possessed
by each - so much more love burns in that cloister."
"I am more hungry now for satisfaction"
I said, "than if I'd held my tongue before;
I host a deeper doubt within my mind.
How can a good that's shared by more possessors
enable each to be more rich in it
than if that good had been possessed by few?"
And he to me: "But if you still persist
in letting your mind fix on earthly things,
then even from the true light you gather darkness.
That Good, ineffable and infinite,
which is above, directs Itself toward love
as light directs itself to polished bodies.
Where ardor is, that Good gives of itself;
and where more love is, there that Good confers
a greater measure of eternal worth.
And when there are more souls above who love,
there's more to love well there, and they love more,
and mirror-like, each soul reflects the other."
"Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of
us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my
production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific
character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my
life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have
the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible
to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or
use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious
of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified
man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding
to the need of another man's essential nature. 3) I would have been for you
the mediator between you and the species, and therefore would become
recognized and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential
nature and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know
myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. 4) In the
individual expression of my life I would have directly created your
expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would
have directly confirmed and realized my true nature, my human nature, my
communal nature.
"Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our
essential nature."
"This relationship would moreover be reciprocal; what occurs on my side
has also to occur on yours."
Best,
Ted
