It is in our unconscious repressed desires that we shall find the essence of our being, the clue to our neurosis (as long as reality is repressive), and the clue to what we might become if reality ceased to repress. Our repressed desires are the desires we had, unrepressed, in childhood; and they are desires for pleasures of the flesh. When neurotic symptoms and dreams are analyzed, they invariably contain a nucleus representing a return or regression to the experiences of early childhood. However, the consciousness which comes into conflict with the unconscious is the product of education. It follows that children are, in some sense, unrepressed. Or, to put it another way, in the child, the conscious and the unconscious are not yet separated. It is, therefore, natural to infer that the adult, in flight from repressive reality in dreams and neurosis, regresses to his own childhood because it represents a period of happier days before repression took place. Furthermore, the neurotic symptoms invariably lead not only to the patient’s childhood but also to his pleasures of the flesh. The symptom is not merely a substitute for pleasure denied by reality, but more specifically a substitute for sexual satisfaction denied by reality. However, the repressed sexual desires whose presence was indicated were for the most of a kind labeled “abnormal” or “perverse.” Thus, the analysis of neurosis required the construction of a theory of sexuality which would account for perverted as well as normal sexuality and would trace both to their origins in childhood. #RandolphHarris 1 of 14

This is based on the axiom that the pattern of normal adult sexuality is not a natural (biological) necessity but a cultural phenomenon. The pattern of normal adult sexuality—the mutual love of man and woman and all the variations of the pattern-represents a particular organization of certain possibilities given in the human organism. This sexual organization is made possible by the social organization which marks the transition from ape to man, and simultaneously, it makes that social organization possible. Man’s sexual organization and his social organization are so deeply interconnected that we cannot say which came first, but can only assume a simultaneous organization: parenthood, with the prolonged maintenance of children in a condition of helpless dependence. That parenthood implies family organization of some sort or another, and that family organization is the nucleus of all social organization, are anthropological axioms. It is important to draw attention to the consequences of prolonged parenthood and prolonged infantile dependence on the sexual life of both parents and children. As far as the parents are concerned, it is clear that while adult sexuality serves the socially useful purpose of breeding children, it is for the individual, in some sense, an end in itself as a source of pleasure—the highest pleasure. Adult sexuality, in so far as it is restricted by rules designed to maintain the institution of the family and, in so far as the desire for sexual satisfaction is diverted and exploited for the purpose of maintaining a socially useful institution, is a clear instance of that subordination of the pleasure-principle to the reality-principle which is repression; as such, it is rejected by the unconscious essence of the human being and therefore leads to neurosis. #RandolphHarris 2 of 14

Prolonged infancy refers to a developmental pattern in which the early‑childhood stage—especially the period of dependence, immaturity, and slow maturation—lasts longer than what is typical for other species or for expected human developmental timelines, and it has even more far-reaching consequences. On the one hand, infancy is protected from the harshness of reality by parental care; it represents a period of privileged irresponsibility and freedom from the domination of the reality-principle. This privileged irresponsibility permits and promotes an early blossoming of the essential desires of the human being, without repression and under the sign of the pleasure-principle. On the other hand, the infant’s objective dependence on parental, especially maternal, care promotes a dependent attitude toward reality and inculcates a passive (dependent) need to be loved, which colors all subsequent interpersonal relationships. This psychological vulnerability is subsequently exploited to extract submission to social authority and to the reality-principle in general. Thus, prolonged infancy shapes human desires in two contradictory directions: on the one hand, on the subjective side, toward omnipotent indulgence in pleasure freed from the limitations of reality; on the other hand, on the objective side, toward powerless dependence on other people. The two tendencies come into conflict because the early experience of freedom and absorption in pleasure must succumb to the recognition of the reality-principle, in a capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love. #RandolphHarris 3 of 14

And since the pleasure-principle is forced to capitulate against its will and for reasons which the child does not understand, under circumstances which reproduce its primal experiences of helpless dependence (anxiety), the capitulation can be accomplished only by repression. Hence, it constitutes a trauma from which the individual never recovers psychologically. However, in the unconscious, the repressed dreams of omnipotent indulgence in pleasure persist, as the nucleus of man’s universal neurosis and his restless discontent, the cor irrequietum of St. Augustine. The infantile conflict between actual impotence and dreams of omnipotence is also the basic theme of the universal history of mankind. And in both conflicts—in the history of the individual and the history of the race—the stakes are the meaning of love. Looking back now at the total structure of resignation from the viewpoint of the preservation of integrity, certain observations fall in line and gain significance. To begin with, the integrity of truly detached people has always struck an alert observer. I, for one, have always been aware of it, but what I did not realize earlier was that it is an intrinsic and nuclear part of the structure. Detached, resigned people may be impractical, inert, inefficient, difficult to deal with because of their defiant wariness of influences and closer contact, but they possess—to a greater or lesser extent—an essential sincerity, an innocence in their innermost thoughts and feelings which are not to be bribed or corrupted by the lure of power, success, flattery, or “love.” Furthermore, we recognize in the need to maintain inner integrity another determinant for the basic characteristic. We saw first that avoidances and restrictions were put to the service of integration. Then we saw them also being determined by a need for freedom, not yet knowing its meaning. Now, we understand that they need freedom from involvement, influence, and pressure, from the shackles of ambition and competition, for preserving their inner life unsoiled and untarnished. #RandolphHarris 4 of 14

We may feel puzzled that the patient does not talk about this crucial matter. Actually, he has indicated in many indirect ways that he wants to remain “himself”; that he is afraid of “losing his individuality” through analysis; that analysis would make him like everybody else; that the analyst inadvertently might mold him according to his, the analyst’s, pattern, et cetera. However, the analyst often does not grasp the full implications of such utterances. The context in which they were made suggests the patient’s wanting to remain either his actual neurotic self or his idealized grandiose self. And the patient indeed meant to defend his status quo. However, his insistence on being himself also expresses an anxious concern about preserving the integrity of his real self, although he is not yet able to define it. Only through analytic work can he learn the old truth that he must lose himself (his neurotic glorified self) in order to find himself (his true self). From this basic process, three most different forms of living result. In a first group, persistent resignation, resignation and all it entails, is carried through fairly consistently. In a second, active rebellion: the rebellious group. In a third, deteriorating processes prevail and lead to shallow living. Individual differences in the first group are related to the prevalence of expansive or self-effacing trends and to the degree of retiring from activities. In spite of a cultivated emotional distance from others, some are capable of doing things for their families, their friends, or for those with whom they come in contact through their work. And, perhaps because of being disinterested, they often are effective in the help they give. If others mistake their willingness to help for personal affection and want more of it in addition to the help given, in contrast to the latter, it rather exasperates them. #RandolphHarris 5 of 14

In spite of a restriction of activities, many such people are capable of doing their daily work. It is, though, usually felt as a strain because it is done against the inner odds of inertia. The inertia becomes more noticeable as soon as the work accumulates, requires initiative, or involves fighting for or against something. The motivations for doing routine work usually are mixed. Besides economic necessity and the traditional shoulds, there also is often a need to be useful to others despite being themselves resigned. Besides, daily work may also be a means of getting away from the feeling of futility they possess when left to their own resources. They often do not know what to do with their leisure time. Contacts with others are too much of a strain to be enjoyable. They like being by themselves, but they are unproductive. Even reading a book may meet with inner resistance.  If it is available without effort, they dream, think, listen to music, or enjoy nature. They are mostly unaware of the lurking fear of futility but may automatically arrange their work in a way that leaves little free time by themselves. Finally, the inertia and the accompanying aversion to regular work may prevail. If they have no financial means, they may take occasional jobs or else sink down to a parasitic existence. Or, if moderate means are available, they rather restrict their needs to the utmost in order to feel free to do as they please. The things they do, however, often have the character of hobbies. Or they may succumb to a more or less complete inertia. This outcome is presented in a masterly fashion in Goncharov’s unforgettable Oblomov, who resents even having to put on his shoes. His friend invites him on a trip to some other countries and makes all the preparations for him, down to the last detail. Oblomov sees himself in his imagination in Paris and in the Swiss mountains, and we are kept in suspense: will he or will he not go? Of course, he backs down. The prospect of what seems to him a turbulent moving around and ever-new impression is too much. #RandolphHarris 6 of 14

Even if not carried to such extremes, a pervasive inertia bears within it the danger of deterioration, as is shown in Oblomov’s and his servant’s later fate. (Here, then, would be a transition to the shallow living of the third group.) It is also dangerous because it may extend beyond a resistance against doing to one against thinking and feeling as well. Both thinking and feeling may then become purely reactive. Some train of thought may be set in motion by a conversation or by the analyst’s comments, but since no energies are mobilized by it, it peters out. Some feeling, positive or negative, may be stimulated by a visit or a letter, but it likewise fades out soon after. A letter may evoke an impulse to answer it, but if not acted upon right away, it may be forgotten. The inertia in thinking can be well observed in analysis and often is a great hindrance to work. Simple mental operations become difficult. Whatever is discussed during one hour may then be forgotten—not because of any specific “resistance” but because the patient lets the content lie in his brain like a foreign body. Sometimes, he feels helpless and confused in analysis, as well as in reading or discussing somewhat difficult matters, because the strain of connecting data is too great. One patient expressed this aimless confusion in a dream, in which he found himself in various places all over the world. He had no intention of going to any of them; he did not know how he got there, or how he would go from there. The more the inertia spreads, the more the person’s feelings are affected by it. He needs stronger stimuli to respond at all. A group of beautiful trees in a park no longer arouses any feelings; he requires a riotous sunset. Such an inertia of feelings entails a tragic element. As we have seen, the resigned type largely restricts his expansiveness in order to maintain intact the genuineness of his feelings. However, if carried to extremes, the process chokes off the very aliveness it was meant to preserve. Hence, when his emotional life becomes paralyzed, he suffers under the resulting deadness of his feelings more than other patients, and this may be the one thing which he does want to change. As the analysis proceeds, he may at times have the experience of his feelings being more alive as soon as he is generally more active. Even so, he hates to realize that his emotional deadness is but one expression of his pervasive inertia, and hence that it can change only as the latter is lessened. #RandolphHarris 7 of 14

If some activity is maintained and living conditions are fairly appropriate, this picture of persistent resignation may remain stationary. Many attributes of the resigned type combine to make it so: his check on strivings and expectations, his aversion to change and inner struggle, his capacity to put up with things. Against all of this, however, militates one disquieting element—the appeal freedom has for him. Actually, the resigned person is a subdued rebel. So far in our study, we have seen this quality expressed in a passive resistance against internal and external pressure. However, it might turn at any time into an active rebelliousness. Whether it actually does, depends on the relative strength of expansive and self-effacing trends and on the degree of inner aliveness a person has managed to salvage. The stronger his expansive tendencies and the more alive he is, the more easily will he become discontented with the restrictions of his life. The discontentment with the external situation may prevail; then it is primarily a “rebellion against.” Or, if his discontent with himself prevails, it is primarily a “rebellion for.” Rebellion can be active or passive. The classic example of willful rebellion is Lucifer, who, in the premortal world, opposed the Father’s plan of redemption and rallied others to oppose it as well, “and, at that day, many followed after him.” It is not hard to discern the impact of rebellion in our own time. Perhaps the more insidious form of rebellion against God, however, is the passive version—ignoring his will in our lives. Many who would never consider active rebellion may still oppose the will and word of God by pursuing their own path without regard to divine direction. I am reminded of the song made famous years ago by singer Frank Sinatra with the climactic lyrics, “I did it my way.” Certainly, in life there is plenty of room for personal preference and individual choice, but when it comes to matters of salvation and eternal life, our theme song ought to be, “I did God’s way,” because truly there is no other way. There is much in public and personal discourse today that is malicious and mean-spirited. There is much conversation that is vulgar and profane, even among youth. This sort of speech is a “weapon of rebellion” against God, “full of deadly poison.” #RandolphHarris 8 of 14

It is possible to distinguish analytically between two different levels of legitimation (empirically, of course, these levels overlap). Incipient legitimation is present as soon as a system of linguistic objectifications of human experience is transmitted. For example, the transmission of a kinship vocabulary ipso facto legitimates the kinship structure. The fundamental legitimating “explanations” are, so to speak, built into the vocabulary. Thus, a child learns that another child is a “cousin,” a piece of information that immediately and inherently legitimates the conduct with regard to “cousins” that is learned along with the designation. To this first level of incipient legitimation belongs all the simple traditional affirmations to the legitimation belong all the simple traditional affirmations to the effect that “This is how things are done”—the earliest and generally effective responses to a child’s question of “Why?” This level, of course, is pretheoretical. However, it is the foundation of self-evident “knowledge” on which all subsequent theories must rest—and, conversely, which they must attain if they are to become incorporated in tradition. The second level of legitimation contains theoretical propositions in a rudimentary form. Here may be found various explanatory schemes relating sets of objective meanings. These schemes are highly pragmatic, directly related to concrete actions. Proverbs, moral maxims, and wise sayings are common on this level. Here, too, belong legends and folk tales, frequently transmitted in poetic forms. Thus, the child learns such adages as “He who steals from his cousin gets warts on his hands” or “Go when your wife cries, but run when your cousin calls for you.” Or he may be inspired by the “Song of the Loyal Cousins Who Went Hunting Together” and frightened out of his wits by the “Dirge for Two Cousins Who Fornicated.” #RandolphHarris 9 of 14

The third level of legitimation contains explicit theories by which an institutional sector is legitimated in terms of a differentiated body of knowledge. Such legitimations provide fairly comprehensive frames of reference for the respective sectors of institutionalized conduct. Because of their complexity and differentiation, they are frequently entrusted to specialized personnel who transmit them through formalized initiation procedures. Thus, there may be an elaborate economic theory of “cousinhood,” its rights, obligations, and standard operating procedures. This lore is administered by the old men of the clan, perhaps assigned to them after their own economic usefulness is at an end. The old men initiate the adolescents into this higher economics in the course of the puberty rites and appear as experts whenever there are problems of application. If we assume that the old men have no other tasks assigned to them, it is likely that they will spin out of theories in question among themselves even if there are no problems such in the course of their theorizing. In other words, with the development of specialized legitimating theories and their administration by full-time legitimators, legitimation begins to go beyond pragmatic application and to become “pure theory.” With this step, the sphere of legitimations begins to attain a measure of autonomy vis-à-vis the legitimated institutions and eventually may generate its own institutional processes. In our example, the “science of cousinhood” may begin to have a life of its own quite independent of the activities of merely “lay” cousins, and the body of “scientists” may set up its own institutional processes over against the institutions that the “science” was originally meant to legitimate. We may imagine an ironic culmination of this development when the word “cousin” no longer applies to a kinship role but to the holder of a degree in the hierarchy of “cousinhood” specialist. #RandolphHarris 10 of 14

Symbolic universes constitute the fourth level of legitimation. These are bodies of theoretical tradition that integrate different provinces of meaning and encompass the institutional order in a symbolic totality, using the term “symbolic” in the way we have previously defined. To reiterate, symbolic processes are processes of signification that refer to realities other than those of everyday experience. It may be readily seen how the symbolic sphere relates to the most comprehensive level of legitimation. The sphere of pragmatic application is transcended once and for all. Legitimation now takes place by means of symbolic totalities that cannot be experienced in everyday life at all—except, of course, insofar as one might speak of “theoretical experience” (strictly speaking, a misnomer, to be used heuristically if at all). This level of legitimation is further distinguished from the preceding one by its scope of meaningful integration. Already on the preceding level, it is possible to find a high degree of integration of particular provinces of meaning and discrete processes of institutionalized conduct. Now, however, all the sectors of the institutional order are integrated in an all-embracing frame of reference, which now constitutes a universe in the literal sense of the word, because all human experience can now be conceived of as taking place within it. The symbolic universe is conceived as the matrix of all socially objectivated and subjectively real meanings; the entire historic society and the entire biography of the individual are seen as events taking place within this universe. What is particularly important, the marginal situation of the life of an individual (marginal, that is, in not being included in the reality of everyday existence in society) are also encompassed by the symbolic universe. Such situations are experienced in dreams and fantasies as provinces of meaning detached from everyday life, and endowed with a peculiar reality of their own. #RandolphHarris 11 of 14

Within the symbolic universe, these detached realms of reality are integrated within a meaningful totality that “explains,” perhaps also justifies them (for instance, dreams may be “explained” by a psychological theory, both “explained” and justified by a theory of metempsychosis, and either theory will be grounded in a much more comprehensive universe—a “scientific” one, say, as against a “metaphysical” one). The symbolic universe is, of course, constructed by means of social objectivations. Yet its meaning-bestowing capacity far exceeds the domain of social life, so that the individual may “locate” himself within it even in his most solitary experiences. On this level of legitimation, the reflective integration of discrete institutional processes reaches its ultimate fulfillment. A whole world is created. All the lesser legitimating theories are viewed as special perspectives on phenomena that are aspects of this world. Institutional roles become modes of participation in a universe that transcends and includes the institutional order. In our previous example, the “science of cousinhood” is only a part of a much wider body of theory, which, almost certainly, will contain a general theory of the cosmos and a general theory of man. The ultimate legitimation for “correct” actions in kinship structure will then be their “location” within a cosmological and anthropological frame of reference. Incest, for instance, will attain its ultimate negative sanction as an offense against the divine order of the cosmos and against the divinely established nature of man. So many economic misbehaviors, or any other deviance from the institutional norms. The limits of such ultimate legitimation are, in principle, coextensive with the limits of theoretical ambition and ingenuity on the part of the legitimators, the officially accredited definers of reality. #RandolphHarris 12 of 14

In practice, of course, there will be variations in the degree of precision with which particular segments of the institutional order are placed in a cosmic context. Again, these variations may be due to particular pragmatic problems on which the legitimators are consulted, or they may be the result of autonomous developments in the theoretical fancy of the cosmological experts. The crystallization of a symbolic universe follows the previously discussed processes of objectivation, sedimentation and accumulation of knowledge. That is, symbolic universes are social products of history. If one is to understand their meaning, one has to understand the history of their production. This is all the more important because these products of human consciousness, by their very nature, present themselves as full-blown and inevitable totalities. However, there is also an honestly intended philanthropism which amounts to the same thing as contempt for mankind. It consists in judging the man according to his latent values, according to his underlying soundness, reasonableness and goodness. This kind of philanthropism will generally arise in peaceful times. However, even in great crises when these values shine out on particular occasions, they may form the basis for a hard-won and well-meant love for humanity. With forced indulgence, evil is interpreted as good. Baseness is overlooked and the reprehensible is excused. For one reason or another, one is afraid to give a clear “no” for an answer, and one ends by acquiescing in everything. One’s love is directed to a picture of a man of one’s own making, a picture which scarcely preserves any resemblance with the reality. And consequently, one finishes once again by despising the real man whom God has loved and whose nature He has taken upon Himself. #RandolphHarris 13 of 14

It is only through God’s being made man that it is possible to know the real man and not to despise him. The real man can live before God, and we can allow the real man to live before God side by side with ourselves without either despising or deifying him. That is not to say that this is really a value on its own account. It is simply and solely because God has loved the real man and has taken him to Himself. The ground for God’s love towards man does not lie in man but solely in God Himself. And again, the reason why we can live as real men and can love the real man at our side is to be found solely in the incarnation of God, in the unfathomable love of God for man. Someone may think that by punishment is meant what is now seldom mentioned—the punishment of eternity. And it might seem that the person was not double-minded who wills the Good out of fear of punishment, since he refers the punishment to eternity, therefore to the same place where the Good has its home. And yet, he does not will the Good, he wills it only out of fear of punishment. Therefore—if there were no punishment! In that “if” lurks doublemindedness. If there were no punishment, or if indeed there was a man who could convince him that eternity’s punishment was a fantasy; or if it became common practice to think in this fashion; or if he could travel to a foreign country where it was common practice; of if cowardly and hypocritical superstition could discover a cheap means of propitiation!!! Look at the doublemindedness! Note that it can just as easily seek its consolation in unbelief as in superstition. And if doublemindedness does not seek them out, then it is they that try to capture doublemindedness until the matter be obvious. If one were briefly to characterize double-mindedness by a single appropriate expression, what would be more characteristic than that—“if,” “in that case that”! Paul reminds of that we are to glorify God in both body and spirit and that this body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, “which ye have of God, and ye are not your own.” #RandolphHarris 14 of 14

The Winchester Mystery House

Join us in celebrating the life of Mrs. Sarah L. Winchester on the anniversay of her passing, September 5, 1922.

Hostted by the enchanting Vogle Victorian team, this intimite Victorian Tea Party is limited to just 24 guests and includes a Victorian-style séance, blessing jar creations, and tea service inside the mansion. Held on the anniversay of her passing, this intimate gathering offers a unique way to honor Mrs. Sarah L. Winchester in the home where she spent nearly four decades.

Event detailes:

Date: September 5, 2026

Time: 10am PST & 7pm PST

Includes: Full Tea service, blessing jar material, and the séance experience

Price: $179.99

Limitied spots available, buy tickets at winchestermysteryhouse.com