You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The idea of revisiting the Oedipus myth came to me when I was reflecting on the theoretical problems that sprang from my clinical experience. Some ideas cropped up again and again, which made me think it would be worthwhile. Could this myth help solve some theoretical problems I had been working on in the previous essay? I hope to convey my key ideas in the course of this essay.
First, I had encountered a seminal problem in my psychoanalytical experience. We have, with the patient, to work through both his narcissistic omnipotent illusions and his responsibility for his unconscious oedipal desires. In his narcissistic beliefs man may have the chimeric illusion that he can completely govern his destiny. Thus, on the one hand, the subject has a narcissistic illusion of being ‘the master in his own house’ (Freud 1917b), while, on the other hand, he is irredeemably ‘elsewhere’ because of his unconscious identifications and unconscious desires. Yet psychoanalysis teaches us (and unconscious guilt is an example) how responsible we are for our psychic truths, for our unconscious desires, which are always active. Furthermore, I was struck by the status of what remains secret in the transmission of certain unconscious identifications.
In this essay I am taking material we can all share, the Oedipus myth, as another way of conveying how my clinical experience has led me to think in terms of the concept of an Oedipal configuration. The main questions that interested me were why did Oedipus commit parricide and incest in material reality? Where does Oedipus’ psychic responsibility for his destiny lie? What is Laius’ status in the tragedy?