On 24 May Stephen Black wrote re the passage on Fechner in Ernest Jones's
biography on Freud [snip]:
>What Jones said, in expanded form was this:
>"He did not commit himself on the question of whether unconscious
processes could be psychical, but of their importance otherwise he was
convinced. "that is below the threshold carries [italics in orig] the
consciousness, since it sustains the physical connection in between". He
likened the mind to an iceberg which is nine-tenths underwater and whose
course is determined not only by the wind that plays over the surface but
also by the currents of the deep".
>The problem is that the all-critical footnote indicator (superscript 2) to
Fechner does not appear at the end of this passage but in the middle,
exactly after the quoted sentence, "What is below the threshold...".
>Thus Jones is specifically referencing Fechner for the sentence which
appears in quotation marks (our students should be so careful). The
remainder of the passage, "He likened the mind..." may be Jones' attempt
to clarify what Fechner had said. As this is in 1953, the analogy would
come easily to Jones, the iceberg analogy by that time being in full
float.<
I take Stephen's point that Jones's footnote is appended to the only direct
quote in the passage from Fechner, Book 2, so the paraphrase of the analogy
about the unconscious is not necessarily on precisely that page.
>Perhaps this interpretation is forced, but if I were Jones and I wanted to
attribute the iceberg analogy to Freud, I would have put that footnote at
the end of the entire passage, not in the middle.<
I think Stephen is taking his 'thesis' and running with it here. It is
perfectly natural that, within this passage of paraphrasing Fechner, Jones
should put the footnote at the place where he gives a direct (translated)
quote. (He has already cited Fechner's book two pages earlier.) Except when
he is making a general reference, he does the same for other quotes, e.g.,
from Herbart, that he gives on previous pages.
>"Perhaps this interpretation is forced..."
I think it is! For this reason: Paraphrasing (rather than quoting
extensively) is more natural given that Jones is in the middle of a section
in which he is presenting notions from different authors writing before
Freud, as one can see from his more extensive paraphrasing from Herbart;
the "iceberg" sentence reads to me like a paraphrase on the same lines,
i.e., reporting pretty closely what the writer says. ("He likened the mind
to an iceberg...")
>As this is in 1953, the analogy would come easily to Jones, the iceberg
analogy by that time being in full float.<
Assuming this was the case (though I only recall the New York Times obit as
being pre-1953 - did anyone find others?), then it would surely have been
natural for Jones to have used the "one seventh above" the water version,
rather than "nine-tenths below" analogy he actually gives. (And, as I've
mentioned before, I suspect that Jones would have cited the relevant
passage in Freud's works at this point had it been there. That suggests
that if Freud did say it, it is not in the Standard Edition.)
>I've requested a copy of the first edition of volume 2 of Elemente to see
what old Fechner actually said on p, 521. It will be in German, of course,
which I don't understand, but I think I will be able to recognize "eisberg"
if it appears anywhere on that page. Stand by.<
That should clear it up. (You could scan the page and put it through a web
translator!) But be sure to check pages close to p. 521 as well! You've
already shown that we can't assume the analogy is at precisely the same
page as the direct quote given by Jones.
In a second posting Stephen wrote:
> Because Freud said he relied on Fechner, it's not so hard
> to then imagine that this eventually led to people confusing
> what Freud said with what Fechner actually said.
I hardly think that a single statement, with no mention of any subject
matter ("I was always open to the ideas of G.T Fechner and have followed
that thinker upon many important points", Autobiographical Study, SE 20, p.
59), could cause anyone to assign a specific metaphor to Freud when it
actually came from Fechner. And since when have people required anything so
specific to attribute pre-Freudian notions to Freud? - :)
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
http://www.esterson.org/
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
