And of course, this deepening knowledge of him made me ache for him all the more. I considered again that in my dark preternatural youth, I had made companions for myself who could never really be companions—Gabrielle, who had no need of me; Nicolas, who had gone mad; Louis, who could not forgive me for having seduced him into the realm of the mysterious, even though he had wanted the secrets himself. There is one psychoanalytic term that has gained wide popularity and in popular use has changed its meaning. Such popular use always indicates a significant fact about a society and therefore deserves our attention. I refer to the term “ego.” People say that something is good or bad for their “ego.” They mean by this that their self-feeling—in the sense of the status which they accord themselves—rises when something is good and falls when something is bad for their ego. In this usage ego is only part of the person. My “ego” is not identical with “I” or “self.” It is not identical with the I who is well or ill, who sees and hears and touches and tastes and smells, who acts, walks, sits, stands, lies, who is moved by others, by what is seen and experienced. Moreover, what is “good” or “bad” for my who is not at all necessarily good or bad for me, although I may be inclined to think so. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

The popular “ego” gains from success, winning in competition, status, being admired, flattered, loved; it does not gain from facing the truth, from loving somebody else, from humility. It behaves like a stock or a piece of merchandise endowed with self-awareness: if it is much in demand it rises, is blown up, feels important; if not, it falls, shrinks, feels it is nothing. Thus, it I an alienated part of the self. Alienation can be like a psychic accident. Like when the soul of a dead person takes over a living body; a spirit possessing a human being; it has to be persuaded to let go. However, while it is only part of the self, it has the tendency to become the focal point of the feeling of identity and to dominate the whole life of the people who ae involved with their “ego” to a significant degree. Their mood fluctuates with their ego. They are haunted by their “ego” and preoccupied with its enhancement and downfall so much so that the vibration and the constriction coming from egotistical individuals may make others sense that they are being forced quite literally out of their physical self. These individuals may feel that they have a life apart from their “ego,” but they stand or fall with it. The “ego” has become their identity and at the same time the main object of their worry, ambition, and preoccupation, crowding out any real concern with themselves and with others. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

The popular ego can serve as the most important model of an alienated concept of identity, even though it may be surpassed in rigidity and fixedness by some other examples of such concepts, to which we shall turn now. There once was a man named Pavel Smerdyakov who, on trial for the murder of his father, suffers his worst misery when the prosecutors asked him to take off his socks. They were very dirty and now everyone could see it. All his life he had thought both his big toes hideous. He particularly loathed the coarse, flat, crooked nail on the right one and now they would all see it. Feeling intolerably ashamed. The accidental, unchangeable appearance of his feet, of the nail of his right big toe, here becomes the focal point of his identity. It is on this that Pavel feels the less affluent who stand around him and look at him will judge him and that he judges himself. Very often real or imagined physical attributes, parts of the body image or the entire body image, become focal points of identity. Many beings build around such a negative identity the feeling that this particular feature unalterably determines the course of their lives, and that they are thereby doomed to unhappiness. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

The idea of escaping alienation is much like how Anne Rice’s Lestat de Lioncourt dreams of becoming human again in The Tale of the Body Thief, “I rose from the table, struggling, in my excitement, to move like a human. Ah, move like a human. Think of it, to be inside a human body. To see the Sun, really see it, a tiny blazing ball in a blue sky!” Usually, in these cases, qualities such as attractiveness and beauty are no longer felt to be based on the alive expression and flux of human feelings, but have become fixed and dead features, or a series of poses, as so many Hollywood stars or fashion models These features are cut off from the center of the person and worn like a mask. Unattractiveness is experienced as not possessing this mask. In the same way, other real or imagined attributes, or the ack of them, become focal points for a reified, alienated, negative identity. For example: feeling not sufficiently masculine or feminine, being born on the wrong side of the river, being a member of an underrepresented group or gender against which racial or religious prejudices are directed, and, in the most general form, feeling intrinsically inadequate or bad. I do not imply, of course, that in our society the accident circumstance of being born as the member of one social, national, or religious group or class rather than another does not result in very real, objective difficulties, disadvantages or privileges. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

I am concerned here only with the attitude which the person takes toward such handicaps or advantages or privileges, which is important for one’s ability to deal them. In this attitude the structure of the sense of identity and the way in which such factors as the social background and innate advantages or handicaps are incorporated in the sense of identity play a decisive role. What are the dynamics of such alienated concepts of identity? Sometimes they crystallize around repeated parental remarks which, rather than referring to a particular act of the child, say or imply that the child is or lacks, by its very nature, such and such; that Tom is a lazy good-for-noting or that he is “just like Uncle Harry,” who happens the be the troublemaker in the family. Frequently they develop from an ego-ideal that is alien to the child’s own personality, but about which one has come to feel that, unless one is such and such, one is nothing. Whatever their genetic origin, I shall consider here mainly the phenomenological structure of alienated identity concepts and the dynamics of this structure which tend to perpetuate self-alienation. By making some quality or circumstance, real or exaggerated or imagined, the focal point of a reified identity, I look upon myself as though I were a thing (res) and the quality or circumstance were a fixed attribute of this thing or object. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

However, the “I” that feels that I am this or that, in doing so, distances itself from the very same reified object attribute which it experiences as determining its identity and very often as a bane on its life. In feeling that I am not such and such, I distinguish between the unfortunate I and the presumably unalterable quality or lack which, for all time, condemns me to have this negative identity. I do not feel that I am doing this or that or failing to do it, but that there is a something in me or about me, or that I lack something and that this, once and for all, makes me this or that, fixes my identity. The person who has this attitude toward oneself usually is unaware of its being a particular attitude with concrete and far-reaching implications. One takes one’s attitude for granted as a natural, inevitable one and is aware only of the painful self-consciousness and self-preoccupation it involves. One cannot imagine how anyone with one’s fate could have any other attitude. The two most significant implications of this attitude to oneself are: the severance from the living I of the reified attribute which is experiences as a fixed, unchangeable quality, and the severance of this reified attribute from its dynamic and structural connection with other qualities, needs, acts, and experiences of the person. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

In other words, the reified attribute is cut off from the living, developing, fluctuating I in time, since it is experienced as immutable. However, it is also cut off from being experiences as an integral part of the living personality, connected with the totality of the person’s strivings, attitudes, perceptions, feelings, with one’s acting and failing to act. In reality, of course, we can observe that certain actions, moods, and experiences cause changes in the role of the negative identity in the conscious feelings and thoughts of the person. However, one usually does not experience the reified attribute which forms the core of one’s negative self-feeling as something connected with, and due to, one’s own actions and attitudes, but as something fixed on which one has no influence. Furthermore, just as the person’s feeling about oneself may fluctuate with the ups and downs of one’s “ego,” so it also varies with the intensity of the negative self-feeling based on some reified attribute which, at times, may disappear altogether from the conscious thoughts of the person. However, when it reappears it is recognized as the same unfortunate quality that throughout the past has tainted—and will forever taint—the person’s life. Thus, in spite of such fluctuations, the alienated attribute is experienced as a “something” that basically does not and cannot change. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

To be saddled with a reified, negative identity seems, on the face of it, noting but a painful burden. Yet one often can see people cling to such negative self-images with a great deal of stubbornness and in the face of contradictory evidence. In psychoanalytic therapy, it is often seen that the patient who comes for help tries to convince the therapist that nothing can be done for one, since one is born with such and such a handicap or without such and such an advantage. On closer scrutiny, one may find that such insistence by the patient on the hopelessness of the situation has a way of occurring at a point when the patient is afraid to face an issue, or when one wants to be pitied rather than helped. Thus, the reified identity concept often provides a protection against an anxiety-arousing challenge, a way out of a feared situation, and thereby a certain relief. This relief is dynamically similar to the relief observable in certain hypochondriacal and paranoid patients. It sounds paradoxical to speak of relief in the case of patients who are obviously beset by worry, suffering, and fear as the hypochondriac and the paranoid. However, the hypochondriacal patient who is preoccupied with imagined, anticipated, or real ailments sees oneself as the “customarily handicapped” one and thereby avoids the anxiety-provoking prospect of facing and dealing with one’s real problems. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

One’s hypochondriacal preoccupation get the patient off the sport with oneself—namely, off the spot where one would have to deal with one’s realistic personality problems. There are neuroses which may occur in individuals whose personality is otherwise intact and undistorted, developing as a reaction to an external situation which is filled with conflicts. Character neuroses is a condition in which—through the symptomatic picture may be exactly like that of a situation neurosis—the main disturbance is possessed in the deformation neurosis—the main disturbance is possessed in the deformations of the character. They are the result of an insidious chronic process, starting as a rule in childhood and involving greater or lesser intensity. Seen from the surface a character neurosis, too, may result from an actual situation conflict, but a carefully collected history of the person may show that difficult character traits were present long before any confusing situation arose, that the momentary predicament is itself to a large extent due to previously existing personal difficulties, and furthermore that the person reacts neurotically to a life situation which for the average healthy individual does not imply any conflict at all. The situation merely reveals the presence of a neurosis which may have existed for some time. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

In the second place, we are not so much interested in the symptomatic picture of the neurosis. Our interest is possessed predominantly in the character disturbances themselves, because deformations of the personality are the ever-recurring picture in neuroses, whereas symptoms in the clinical sense may vary or be entirely lacking. Also from a cultural viewpoint character formation is more important than symptoms, because it is character, not symptoms, that influences human behavior. With greater knowledge of the structure of neuroses and with the realization that the cure of a symptom does not necessarily mean the cure of a neurosis, psychoanalysts in general have shifted their interest and given more attention to character deformations that to symptoms. Speaking figuratively we may say that the neurotic symptoms are not the volcano itself but rather its eruptions, while the pathogenic conflict, like the volcano, is hidden deep down in the individual, unknown to oneself. These restrictions granted we may rise the question whether neurotic persons today have traits in common which are so essential that we may speak of a neurotic personality of our time. As to the character deformations which accompany different types of neuroses, we are struck by their differences rather than by their similarities. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

The hysterical character, for instance, is decidedly different from the compulsive character. The differences which strike our attention, however, are differences of mechanisms or, in more general terms, differences in the way the two disturbances manifest themselves and in the ways in which they are solved, such as the great role of projection in the hysterical type as compared with the intellectualization of conflicts in the compulsive type. On the other hand, the similarities which I have in mind to do not concern the manifestations or the ways in which they have brought about, but they concern the content of the conflict itself. To be more exact, the similarities are not so much in the experience which have genetically prompted the disturbance but in the conflicts which are actually moving the person. In Tales of the Body Thief, by Anne Rice, Lestat was in Paris, France with his mother Gabrielle at a café on the Left Bank. It was a lovely spring day and a grand time to be in Paris, as all the songs say. He was drinking a beer, reading the English papers, and realized that he was overhearing a conversation. He drifted away again. And Lestat realized that he was overhearing this strange conversation and it was not in English and it was not in French. Gradually he came to know that it was not in any language really, and yet it was fully understandable to him. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

Lestat then put down his paper, and began to concentrate. On and on it went. It was a sort of argument. He looked down and slowly turned around and there were two beings, seated at the table talking to each other, and just for a moment, it seemed normal—two men in conversation. He started to feel like he was fading out and realized that the two individuals were not human beings. It was painfully clear that there were illusory. They simply were not of the same fabric as everything else. They were not being illuminated by the same light, for instance, they existed in some realm where the light was from another source. Like the light in Rembrandt. Their clothes and their faces were smoother than those of human beings. The whole vision was of a different texture, and that texture was uniform in all its detail. God and Satan pretended not to see Lestat, but they allowed him to hear their discussion. The devil said he feels for humankind in their wretchedness, and humans have become more bestial than any beast because they have reasons. The Lord agreed that human beings too easily become lax; they need vigilance, even though beings ever errs the while one strives. God proposed that the human beings should be ever active, ever live creation. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

God told the Devil that he must go on doing his job. And the Devil did not want to do it. He explained that his term had already been too long. The same thing was happening to him that had happened to all the others. God said the he understood, but the Devil ought to know how important he was, he could not simply shirk his duties, it was not that simple, God needed him, and needed him to be strong. And all this was amicable. This conversation tells us that it is crucial for us to take action, strive, and put in effort. Forever the active deed takes supremacy over other forms of human existence. In the beginning in Genesis, when it is declared, “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,” this may be to intellectualistic. Perhaps sensibility will do, in the beginning was the Sense. In the beginning there was the Deed. The Big Bang was when the cells of God began to divide. One may well be a bit suspicious of offers and guarantees, of salvation by a guru. How this can be done without thwarting Nature’s intent to develop us fully on all sides is difficult to see. If we are granted absolution from such effort, we shall be robbed of the important values implicit in self-effort. This is why people consider human beings to be an experiment. We are supposed to see what we are made of and overcome our destructive nature and heal, love and create. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

The searcher who is undeceived by fine phrases and knows when to look for the self-interest behind them, will know also when emphasis on the need of a master is cunningly or emotionally turned into exaggeration of the need. I will be the most deferential of beings before the teaching and in the presence of a truly illuminated being. However, I will stubbornly resist, and stand firm on my ground, when I am asked to surrender my intellectual freedom and become one’s bonded disciple, open no longer to the teaching or influence of any other being. One has to detach oneself—or to let oneself become detached by book or teacher—from false ideas, conventional fallacies, or blind leadership. The statement of high truth made by any prophet or sage will always remain an individual interpretation—this is a point that is too often unnoticed or unknown or unacceptable. All history authenticates it. The highest authority by which any mystic can speak is really one’s higher self’s. One revelation and communication cannot therefore be valid for, or binding upon, other beings. If, however, they do accept one’s pronouncements as such, they do so as a venture of faith. When a mystic takes one’s inner voice to be nothing less than God’s, one’s inner experience to be nothing else than the uttermost union with God, and then proceeds to use them as justification for imposing one’s commands on other mortals, one is no longer a true mystic. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

One has introduced an “other.” One no longer touched the perfect unity of one’s own innermost being but has returned to the World of duality. And because no finite being can really become the infinite God, that “other” reduces itself to being a figment of one’s imagination at best or a lying, possessing spirit at worst. Full enlightenment is not attainable, expect the exuberant emotional fancy of over-enthused followers, for the gulf between being and God is too deep and too wide to be crossed. However, partial enlightenment is attainable, for something like godlike has been reflected into the human being’s heart. However, if it is impossible to become a part of God, it is possible to become a Child of God—that is, a being inspired and guided by God. In time one’s relation to the higher self becomes more intimae than any Earthly friendship, closer than any human union could ever be. Yet it always remains a relation, never becomes an absorption; always a nearness, never a merger. We never become God. We only become a channel for part of God’s light, wisdom, and power. If perfect union, is not attainable, what is attainable is the intimate presence of, and mental communion with, God in our heart, which brings peace and truth. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

Social courage requires the confronting of two different kinds of fear. The first is called life fear. This is the fear of living autonomously, the fear of being abandoned, the need for dependency on someone else. It shows itself in the need to throw one’s self so completely into a relationship that one has no self left with which to relate. One becomes, in effect, a reflection of the person he or she loves—which sooner or later becomes boring to the partner. This is the fear of self-actualization. The opposite fear is called death fear. This is the fear of being totally absorbed by the other, the fear of losing one’s self and one’s autonomy, the fear of having one’s independence taken away. This is the fear most associated with men, for they seek to keep the back door open to beat a hasty retreat in case the relationship becomes too intimate. Both kind of fear have to be confronted, in varying proportions to be sure, by both men and women. All our lives we oscillate between these two fears. They are, indeed, the forms of anxiety that lie in wait for anyone who cares for another. However, if we are to move to self-realization, the confronting of these two fears, and the awareness that one grows not only by being one’s self but also by participating in other selves, is necessary. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

Power was originally a sociological term, a category used chiefly to describe the actions of nations and armies. However, as students of the problem have increasingly realized that power depends upon emotions, attitudes, and motives, they have turned to psychology for the needed clarification. In psychology, power means the ability to affect, to influence, and to change other persons. Each person exists in an interpersonal web, analogous to magnetic fields of force; and each one propels, repels, connects, identifies with others. Thus such considerations as status, authority, and prestige are central to the problem of power. I have used the phrase “sense of significance” to refer to a person’s conviction that one counts for something, that one has an effect on others, and that one can get recognition from one’s fellows. What is the relationship between power and force? Certainly force, the lowest common denominator of power, has been widely identified with power in America; it is the automatic first association with power of most people in this country. This is the chief reason power has been scorned and disparaged as a dirty word. Power is the coercive force in the middle ground between power as energy and power as violence. Not to depend upon and utilize force is simply to be without a foothold in the real World. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

In Loving Memory of Jill Harris’ Grandmother “Boomba.”

And of course, this deepening knowledge of him made me ache for him all the more. I considered again that in my dark preternatural youth, I had made companions for myself who could never really be companions—Gabrielle, who had no need of me; Nicolas, who had gone mad; Louis, who could not forgive me for having seduced him into the realm of the mysterious, even though he had wanted the secrets himself. There is one psychoanalytic term that has gained wide popularity and in popular use has changed its meaning. Such popular use always indicates a significant fact about a society and therefore deserves our attention. I refer to the term “ego.” People say that something is good or bad for their “ego.” They mean by this that their self-feeling—in the sense of the status which they accord themselves—rises when something is good and falls when something is bad for their ego. In this usage ego is only part of the person. My “ego” is not identical with “I” or “self.” It is not identical with the I who is well or ill, who sees and hears and touches and tastes and smells, who acts, walks, sits, stands, lies, who is moved by others, by what is seen and experienced. Moreover, what is “good” or “bad” for my who is not at all necessarily good or bad for me, although I may be inclined to think so. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

The popular “ego” gains from success, winning in competition, status, being admired, flattered, loved; it does not gain from facing the truth, from loving somebody else, from humility. It behaves like a stock or a piece of merchandise endowed with self-awareness: if it is much in demand it rises, is blown up, feels important; if not, it falls, shrinks, feels it is nothing. Thus, it I an alienated part of the self. Alienation can be like a psychic accident. Like when the soul of a dead person takes over a living body; a spirit possessing a human being; it has to be persuaded to let go. However, while it is only part of the self, it has the tendency to become the focal point of the feeling of identity and to dominate the whole life of the people who ae involved with their “ego” to a significant degree. Their mood fluctuates with their ego. They are haunted by their “ego” and preoccupied with its enhancement and downfall so much so that the vibration and the constriction coming from egotistical individuals may make others sense that they are being forced quite literally out of their physical self. These individuals may feel that they have a life apart from their “ego,” but they stand or fall with it. The “ego” has become their identity and at the same time the main object of their worry, ambition, and preoccupation, crowding out any real concern with themselves and with others. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

The popular ego can serve as the most important model of an alienated concept of identity, even though it may be surpassed in rigidity and fixedness by some other examples of such concepts, to which we shall turn now. There once was a man named Pavel Smerdyakov who, on trial for the murder of his father, suffers his worst misery when the prosecutors asked him to take off his socks. They were very dirty and now everyone could see it. All his life he had thought both his big toes hideous. He particularly loathed the coarse, flat, crooked nail on the right one and now they would all see it. Feeling intolerably ashamed. The accidental, unchangeable appearance of his feet, of the nail of his right big toe, here becomes the focal point of his identity. It is on this that Pavel feels the less affluent who stand around him and look at him will judge him and that he judges himself. Very often real or imagined physical attributes, parts of the body image or the entire body image, become focal points of identity. Many beings build around such a negative identity the feeling that this particular feature unalterably determines the course of their lives, and that they are thereby doomed to unhappiness. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

The idea of escaping alienation is much like how Anne Rice’s Lestat de Lioncourt dreams of becoming human again in The Tale of the Body Thief, “I rose from the table, struggling, in my excitement, to move like a human. Ah, move like a human. Think of it, to be inside a human body. To see the Sun, really see it, a tiny blazing ball in a blue sky!” Usually, in these cases, qualities such as attractiveness and beauty are no longer felt to be based on the alive expression and flux of human feelings, but have become fixed and dead features, or a series of poses, as so many Hollywood stars or fashion models These features are cut off from the center of the person and worn like a mask. Unattractiveness is experienced as not possessing this mask. In the same way, other real or imagined attributes, or the ack of them, become focal points for a reified, alienated, negative identity. For example: feeling not sufficiently masculine or feminine, being born on the wrong side of the river, being a member of an underrepresented group or gender against which racial or religious prejudices are directed, and, in the most general form, feeling intrinsically inadequate or bad. I do not imply, of course, that in our society the accident circumstance of being born as the member of one social, national, or religious group or class rather than another does not result in very real, objective difficulties, disadvantages or privileges. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

I am concerned here only with the attitude which the person takes toward such handicaps or advantages or privileges, which is important for one’s ability to deal them. In this attitude the structure of the sense of identity and the way in which such factors as the social background and innate advantages or handicaps are incorporated in the sense of identity play a decisive role. What are the dynamics of such alienated concepts of identity? Sometimes they crystallize around repeated parental remarks which, rather than referring to a particular act of the child, say or imply that the child is or lacks, by its very nature, such and such; that Tom is a lazy good-for-noting or that he is “just like Uncle Harry,” who happens the be the troublemaker in the family. Frequently they develop from an ego-ideal that is alien to the child’s own personality, but about which one has come to feel that, unless one is such and such, one is nothing. Whatever their genetic origin, I shall consider here mainly the phenomenological structure of alienated identity concepts and the dynamics of this structure which tend to perpetuate self-alienation. By making some quality or circumstance, real or exaggerated or imagined, the focal point of a reified identity, I look upon myself as though I were a thing (res) and the quality or circumstance were a fixed attribute of this thing or object. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

However, the “I” that feels that I am this or that, in doing so, distances itself from the very same reified object attribute which it experiences as determining its identity and very often as a bane on its life. In feeling that I am not such and such, I distinguish between the unfortunate I and the presumably unalterable quality or lack which, for all time, condemns me to have this negative identity. I do not feel that I am doing this or that or failing to do it, but that there is a something in me or about me, or that I lack something and that this, once and for all, makes me this or that, fixes my identity. The person who has this attitude toward oneself usually is unaware of its being a particular attitude with concrete and far-reaching implications. One takes one’s attitude for granted as a natural, inevitable one and is aware only of the painful self-consciousness and self-preoccupation it involves. One cannot imagine how anyone with one’s fate could have any other attitude. The two most significant implications of this attitude to oneself are: the severance from the living I of the reified attribute which is experiences as a fixed, unchangeable quality, and the severance of this reified attribute from its dynamic and structural connection with other qualities, needs, acts, and experiences of the person. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

In other words, the reified attribute is cut off from the living, developing, fluctuating I in time, since it is experienced as immutable. However, it is also cut off from being experiences as an integral part of the living personality, connected with the totality of the person’s strivings, attitudes, perceptions, feelings, with one’s acting and failing to act. In reality, of course, we can observe that certain actions, moods, and experiences cause changes in the role of the negative identity in the conscious feelings and thoughts of the person. However, one usually does not experience the reified attribute which forms the core of one’s negative self-feeling as something connected with, and due to, one’s own actions and attitudes, but as something fixed on which one has no influence. Furthermore, just as the person’s feeling about oneself may fluctuate with the ups and downs of one’s “ego,” so it also varies with the intensity of the negative self-feeling based on some reified attribute which, at times, may disappear altogether from the conscious thoughts of the person. However, when it reappears it is recognized as the same unfortunate quality that throughout the past has tainted—and will forever taint—the person’s life. Thus, in spite of such fluctuations, the alienated attribute is experienced as a “something” that basically does not and cannot change. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

To be saddled with a reified, negative identity seems, on the face of it, noting but a painful burden. Yet one often can see people cling to such negative self-images with a great deal of stubbornness and in the face of contradictory evidence. In psychoanalytic therapy, it is often seen that the patient who comes for help tries to convince the therapist that nothing can be done for one, since one is born with such and such a handicap or without such and such an advantage. On closer scrutiny, one may find that such insistence by the patient on the hopelessness of the situation has a way of occurring at a point when the patient is afraid to face an issue, or when one wants to be pitied rather than helped. Thus, the reified identity concept often provides a protection against an anxiety-arousing challenge, a way out of a feared situation, and thereby a certain relief. This relief is dynamically similar to the relief observable in certain hypochondriacal and paranoid patients. It sounds paradoxical to speak of relief in the case of patients who are obviously beset by worry, suffering, and fear as the hypochondriac and the paranoid. However, the hypochondriacal patient who is preoccupied with imagined, anticipated, or real ailments sees oneself as the “customarily handicapped” one and thereby avoids the anxiety-provoking prospect of facing and dealing with one’s real problems. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

One’s hypochondriacal preoccupation get the patient off the sport with oneself—namely, off the spot where one would have to deal with one’s realistic personality problems. There are neuroses which may occur in individuals whose personality is otherwise intact and undistorted, developing as a reaction to an external situation which is filled with conflicts. Character neuroses is a condition in which—through the symptomatic picture may be exactly like that of a situation neurosis—the main disturbance is possessed in the deformation neurosis—the main disturbance is possessed in the deformations of the character. They are the result of an insidious chronic process, starting as a rule in childhood and involving greater or lesser intensity. Seen from the surface a character neurosis, too, may result from an actual situation conflict, but a carefully collected history of the person may show that difficult character traits were present long before any confusing situation arose, that the momentary predicament is itself to a large extent due to previously existing personal difficulties, and furthermore that the person reacts neurotically to a life situation which for the average healthy individual does not imply any conflict at all. The situation merely reveals the presence of a neurosis which may have existed for some time. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

In the second place, we are not so much interested in the symptomatic picture of the neurosis. Our interest is possessed predominantly in the character disturbances themselves, because deformations of the personality are the ever-recurring picture in neuroses, whereas symptoms in the clinical sense may vary or be entirely lacking. Also from a cultural viewpoint character formation is more important than symptoms, because it is character, not symptoms, that influences human behavior. With greater knowledge of the structure of neuroses and with the realization that the cure of a symptom does not necessarily mean the cure of a neurosis, psychoanalysts in general have shifted their interest and given more attention to character deformations that to symptoms. Speaking figuratively we may say that the neurotic symptoms are not the volcano itself but rather its eruptions, while the pathogenic conflict, like the volcano, is hidden deep down in the individual, unknown to oneself. These restrictions granted we may rise the question whether neurotic persons today have traits in common which are so essential that we may speak of a neurotic personality of our time. As to the character deformations which accompany different types of neuroses, we are struck by their differences rather than by their similarities. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

The hysterical character, for instance, is decidedly different from the compulsive character. The differences which strike our attention, however, are differences of mechanisms or, in more general terms, differences in the way the two disturbances manifest themselves and in the ways in which they are solved, such as the great role of projection in the hysterical type as compared with the intellectualization of conflicts in the compulsive type. On the other hand, the similarities which I have in mind to do not concern the manifestations or the ways in which they have brought about, but they concern the content of the conflict itself. To be more exact, the similarities are not so much in the experience which have genetically prompted the disturbance but in the conflicts which are actually moving the person. In Tales of the Body Thief, by Anne Rice, Lestat was in Paris, France with his mother Gabrielle at a café on the Left Bank. It was a lovely spring day and a grand time to be in Paris, as all the songs say. He was drinking a beer, reading the English papers, and realized that he was overhearing a conversation. He drifted away again. And Lestat realized that he was overhearing this strange conversation and it was not in English and it was not in French. Gradually he came to know that it was not in any language really, and yet it was fully understandable to him. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

Lestat then put down his paper, and began to concentrate. On and on it went. It was a sort of argument. He looked down and slowly turned around and there were two beings, seated at the table talking to each other, and just for a moment, it seemed normal—two men in conversation. He started to feel like he was fading out and realized that the two individuals were not human beings. It was painfully clear that there were illusory. They simply were not of the same fabric as everything else. They were not being illuminated by the same light, for instance, they existed in some realm where the light was from another source. Like the light in Rembrandt. Their clothes and their faces were smoother than those of human beings. The whole vision was of a different texture, and that texture was uniform in all its detail. God and Satan pretended not to see Lestat, but they allowed him to hear their discussion. The devil said he feels for humankind in their wretchedness, and humans have become more bestial than any beast because they have reasons. The Lord agreed that human beings too easily become lax; they need vigilance, even though beings ever errs the while one strives. God proposed that the human beings should be ever active, ever live creation. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

God told the Devil that he must go on doing his job. And the Devil did not want to do it. He explained that his term had already been too long. The same thing was happening to him that had happened to all the others. God said the he understood, but the Devil ought to know how important he was, he could not simply shirk his duties, it was not that simple, God needed him, and needed him to be strong. And all this was amicable. This conversation tells us that it is crucial for us to take action, strive, and put in effort. Forever the active deed takes supremacy over other forms of human existence. In the beginning in Genesis, when it is declared, “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,” this may be to intellectualistic. Perhaps sensibility will do, in the beginning was the Sense. In the beginning there was the Deed. The Big Bang was when the cells of God began to divide. One may well be a bit suspicious of offers and guarantees, of salvation by a guru. How this can be done without thwarting Nature’s intent to develop us fully on all sides is difficult to see. If we are granted absolution from such effort, we shall be robbed of the important values implicit in self-effort. This is why people consider human beings to be an experiment. We are supposed to see what we are made of and overcome our destructive nature and heal, love and create. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

The searcher who is undeceived by fine phrases and knows when to look for the self-interest behind them, will know also when emphasis on the need of a master is cunningly or emotionally turned into exaggeration of the need. I will be the most deferential of beings before the teaching and in the presence of a truly illuminated being. However, I will stubbornly resist, and stand firm on my ground, when I am asked to surrender my intellectual freedom and become one’s bonded disciple, open no longer to the teaching or influence of any other being. One has to detach oneself—or to let oneself become detached by book or teacher—from false ideas, conventional fallacies, or blind leadership. The statement of high truth made by any prophet or sage will always remain an individual interpretation—this is a point that is too often unnoticed or unknown or unacceptable. All history authenticates it. The highest authority by which any mystic can speak is really one’s higher self’s. One revelation and communication cannot therefore be valid for, or binding upon, other beings. If, however, they do accept one’s pronouncements as such, they do so as a venture of faith. When a mystic takes one’s inner voice to be nothing less than God’s, one’s inner experience to be nothing else than the uttermost union with God, and then proceeds to use them as justification for imposing one’s commands on other mortals, one is no longer a true mystic. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

One has introduced an “other.” One no longer touched the perfect unity of one’s own innermost being but has returned to the World of duality. And because no finite being can really become the infinite God, that “other” reduces itself to being a figment of one’s imagination at best or a lying, possessing spirit at worst. Full enlightenment is not attainable, expect the exuberant emotional fancy of over-enthused followers, for the gulf between being and God is too deep and too wide to be crossed. However, partial enlightenment is attainable, for something like godlike has been reflected into the human being’s heart. However, if it is impossible to become a part of God, it is possible to become a Child of God—that is, a being inspired and guided by God. In time one’s relation to the higher self becomes more intimae than any Earthly friendship, closer than any human union could ever be. Yet it always remains a relation, never becomes an absorption; always a nearness, never a merger. We never become God. We only become a channel for part of God’s light, wisdom, and power. If perfect union, is not attainable, what is attainable is the intimate presence of, and mental communion with, God in our heart, which brings peace and truth. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

Social courage requires the confronting of two different kinds of fear. The first is called life fear. This is the fear of living autonomously, the fear of being abandoned, the need for dependency on someone else. It shows itself in the need to throw one’s self so completely into a relationship that one has no self left with which to relate. One becomes, in effect, a reflection of the person he or she loves—which sooner or later becomes boring to the partner. This is the fear of self-actualization. The opposite fear is called death fear. This is the fear of being totally absorbed by the other, the fear of losing one’s self and one’s autonomy, the fear of having one’s independence taken away. This is the fear most associated with men, for they seek to keep the back door open to beat a hasty retreat in case the relationship becomes too intimate. Both kind of fear have to be confronted, in varying proportions to be sure, by both men and women. All our lives we oscillate between these two fears. They are, indeed, the forms of anxiety that lie in wait for anyone who cares for another. However, if we are to move to self-realization, the confronting of these two fears, and the awareness that one grows not only by being one’s self but also by participating in other selves, is necessary. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

Power was originally a sociological term, a category used chiefly to describe the actions of nations and armies. However, as students of the problem have increasingly realized that power depends upon emotions, attitudes, and motives, they have turned to psychology for the needed clarification. In psychology, power means the ability to affect, to influence, and to change other persons. Each person exists in an interpersonal web, analogous to magnetic fields of force; and each one propels, repels, connects, identifies with others. Thus such considerations as status, authority, and prestige are central to the problem of power. I have used the phrase “sense of significance” to refer to a person’s conviction that one counts for something, that one has an effect on others, and that one can get recognition from one’s fellows. What is the relationship between power and force? Certainly force, the lowest common denominator of power, has been widely identified with power in America; it is the automatic first association with power of most people in this country. This is the chief reason power has been scorned and disparaged as a dirty word. Power is the coercive force in the middle ground between power as energy and power as violence. Not to depend upon and utilize force is simply to be without a foothold in the real World. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

In Loving Memory of Jill Harris’ Grandmother “Boomba.”