I've been aware of Freud's psychological theories for quite some time, through my own independent reading mostly, but also through college courses in the past couple years. And I've always been fascinated by dreams and the subconscious mind, and their corollary in the arts- surrealism. Salvador Dali was directly influenced by Freud.

But what a revelation to encounter these excerpts from his lectures in our readings, and learn what an eloquent and humble orator he was. His explanations of psychoanalysis and dream interpretation are logical and meticulous, yet he keeps it interesting by an almost self-mockery: "To occupy oneself with dreams... is not merely unpractical and superfluous, but positively scandalous...it carries with it the taint of the unscientific and... leanings toward mysticism" (209). Analyzing the mind is not an exact science, and Freud was warning his audience of the pitfalls inherent in his own new approach.

What a whirlwind of ideas was blowing across Europe at the beginning of the 20th century... Nietzsche had just died, but left a huge imprint that Freud and many others felt and incorporated. I was intrigued by a small phrase in chapter 2 of Beyond Good and Evil: "the popular valuations... upon which metaphysicians have set their seal... are... perhaps...frog perspectives" (my italics- 218). A frog only experiences a very small portion of this world, but for the frog that is its entire universe- Nietzsche is saying that human experience is similar. We can't know the entire truth of even our own small planet, much less assume we can define such lofty concepts as "god" or the cosmos.

I thought of Nietzsche again when I read Siegfried Sassoon's The Dragon and the Undying.

Nietzsche could have been that dragon...

Professor Dwyer's comment:

"Mark, great posts here and very thoughtful, expressive commentary on the essences that you wish shall touch others as they have touched you. Thanks for including the Sassoon excerpt; every time I read that I don't want to be a frog anymore"!

@Gabriela Stewart:

Gabriela- I understand your concern with the term "degenerate" being used to label artists and authors, but I hope I can alleviate some of that for you. The word has different shades of meaning, and I found this definition: "having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable" (my italics). Normal and desirable are relative terms- but who defines them? Society at large, I guess... some collective idea of what "average" is. But since when did artists or authors want to be normal? The fact that they're not average is what drives them to be creative. Max Nordau, for one thing, was an overly zealous religious man, and such men tend to be arch-conservative. (The same type would later have called The Beatles degenerates, and probably burned their records). Coming from such a critic, an artist or author should take it as a compliment.