As Freud writes, “there is nothing more in psychoanalysis than an exchange of words between patient and doctor” (Introduction to Psychoanalysis). Yet, is a simple exchange of words possible? Absense of life creates immediately presense of death, and what is the profit of knowing all the illusions of a person, when my relationship with him has not forgiven not one of them?
Where will I have the Measure (of how to think my knowledge of the other person, how to announce or hide parts of it, how to understand its limits, etc., all of them being also psychoanalytical aims), if forgiveness has not happened? Necessarily psychoanalysis can help only in such cases, when forgiveness is not necessary or even thinkable.
The ideal ego or super-ego is rigid in its judgement of the ego: under which criteria this sort of ‘psychology’ can indeed measure rigidity and clemency, when Conviction exactly as Forgiveness, are absent from its vocabulary, and a soul is identified with ego? To what degree the very concept of a super-ego can help us, when it presupposes the soul’s horizon (normally, i.e., in a healthy and desirable condition) as an horizon of fortuitousness, violence and fancy (super-ego of idealization), whether individually automatic (accidental/necessary), or socially or/and biologically?
Speaking about self-love, vain-glory and vanity, Christian asceticism presupposes the possibility of a real, full and genuine glory, while a super-ego immediately presupposes in the ego the foundation of the ‘healthy’ and indeed soulless man – frozen, since under the best possible conditions his horizon can not but move into fictitiousness.
How could the super-ego concept help, and how could the psychoanalytical transubstantiation help, which presupposes a finite soul? This way it becomes impossible for us to understand any probable ‘transubstantiation’ whatever as escribed in the infinity of the soul, so that we can not have ‘transubstantiations’ but only circumvallations of the soul, whenever a soul defines its essence.
The whole frame of modern psychology reflects the neo-sophistry, when man is explained by himself, he can not but be himself the measure of everything – knowledge, construction and arbitrariness become essentially identified. Thinking about the first sophists in ancient Greece, we can see the essence of their western rebirth and excess, in the absense from the West of the world inside which the ancient sophists appeared and were immediately expelled.