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.
Budapest, October 25, 1912
VII., Erzsébet-körút 54
Dear Professor,
I can't help interrupting my reading of Part I of the libido paper in order to tell you what a depressing impression this reading evokes in me. I now see how all too benevolently we once judged this work as “not particularly successful,” and I am astonished at how it was possible that we were able
to leave unnoticed the purely paranoid thought processes in it. At every moment he [Jung] slides off the tracks of observational science and becomes the founder of a religion. His main concern is not libido theory but the salvation of the Christian community. He identifies confession with psychoanalysis and evidently doesn't know that the confession of sins is the lesser task of Ψα. therapy: the greater one is the demolition of the father imago,1 which is completely absent in confession. Evidently Jung never wanted (and was not able) to let himself be demolished by a patient. So he has never analyzed, but to his patients has always remained the savior who suns himself in his Godlike nature!
He doesn't want to renounce his hidden homosexuality (Christian community) by making it clear to himself; he prefers to “despise” sexuality, praises the “progressive function of the ucs.,” etc. and in its place enjoys praying and being prayed to in the “Christian community.”
He is stuck in an incurable complex-mythological confusion; he identifies the concept of imago with the “autonomous complex” of the insane, etc., etc. It is frightful that our president is unmasking himself in this fashion!
I am still not in order. Still no trace of syphilis, but painful swellings in the inguinal and femoral region (inflamed veins?) are still forcing me to move about as little as possible.
Best regards,
Ferenczi
also from Frau G.