From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:22:11 -0500 (EST)

In a message dated 97-11-19 14:32:46 EST, you write:

 Thanks for your excellent reply to the question of Sheldrake's awe:

 "What needs analyzing, it seems to me, is the tragic loss of this
 capacity in so many people--psychoanalysts certainly included."

 I wonder if your response would be similar to the passage in the
 Introduction to CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS, where Freud says in
 answer to Romain Rolland's question about an oceanic sense of eternity that
 he, Freud, could never convince himself "of the primary nature of such a
 feeling."  Freud writes, "The idea of men's receiving an intimation of
 their connection to the world around them through an immediate feeling ...
 sounds so strange and fits in so badly with the fabric of our psychology
 that one is justified in attempting to discover a psycho-analytic--that is,
 a genetic--explanation of such a feeling."

 [log in to unmask] >>

1. I've heard that Freud's limitations in feeling "oceanic" or filled with
awe, to the point of denying that these feelings are even part of "our
(human) psychology" unless defined as a defense-- was a result of depression.
But that's just a theory. Which I believe.

2. Norm, I was very glad to see that the subject heading on this posting
included the name of someone participating in this thread. It would add so
much to my total Psyart experience if the writer's name was included in the
subject line.
I haven't liked as much the newer way psyart postings come through, without
the name of the person who posted.
   I'm doubly glad to see just whose name is there in the subject line today,
because I've so enjoyed Don Carveth's recent contributions, especially his
brilliant integration of religious thought and psychoanalytic thought.

Jean Hantman