[465]. Compare Freud: Jahrbuch, Vol. III, p. 1.
[466]. Here it is not to be forgotten we are moving entirely in the territory of psychology, which in no way is allied to transcendentalism, either in positive or negative relation. It is a question here of a relentless fulfilment of the standpoint of the theory of cognition, established by Kant, not merely for the theory, but, what is more important, for the practice. One should avoid playing with the infantile image of the world, because all this tends only to separate man from his essential and highest ethical goal, moral autonomy. The religious symbol should be retained after the inevitable obliteration of certain antiquated fragments, as postulate or as transcendent theory, and also as taught in precepts, but is to be filled with new meaning according to the demand of the culture of the present day. But this theory must not become for the “adult” a positive creed, an illusion, which causes reality to appear to him in a false light. Just as man is a dual being, having an intellectual and an animal nature, so does he appear to need two forms of reality, the reality of culture, that is, the symbolic transcendent theory, and the reality of nature which corresponds to our conception of the “true reality.” In the same measure that the true reality is merely a figurative interpretation of the appreciation of reality, the religious symbolic theory is merely a figurative interpretation of certain endopsychic apperceptions. But one very essential difference is that a transcendental support, independent in duration and condition, is assured to the transubjective reality through the best conceivable guarantees, while for the psychologic phenomena a transcendental support of subjective limitation and weakness must be recognized as a result of compelling empirical data. Therefore true reality is one that is relatively universally valid; the psychologic reality, on the contrary, is merely a functional phenomenon contained in an epoch of human civilization. Thus does it appear to-day from the best informed empirical standpoint. If, however, the psychologic were divested of its character of a biologic epiphenomenon in a manner neither known nor expected by me, and thereby was given the place of a physical entity, then the psychologic reality would be resolved into the true reality; or much more, it would be reversed, because then the psychologic would lay claim to a greater worth, for the ultimate theory, because of its directness.
[467]. “De Isid. et Osir.”
[468]. In the fourth place Isis was born in absolute humidity.
[469]. The great beneficent king, Osiris.
[470]. Erman: “Aegypten,” p. 360.
[471]. Here I must again recall that I give to the word “incest” more significance than properly belongs to the term. Just as libido is the onward driving force, so incest is in some manner the backward urge into childhood. For the child, it cannot be spoken of as incest. Only for the adult who possesses a completely formed sexuality does the backward urge become incest, because he is no longer a child but possesses a sexuality which cannot be permitted a regressive application.
[472]. Compare Frobenius: “Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes.”
[473]. Compare the “nightmare legends” in which the mare is a beautiful woman.
[474]. This recalls the phallic columns placed in the temples of Astarte. In fact, according to one version, the wife of the king was named Astarte. This symbol brings to mind the crosses, fittingly called έγκολπια (pregnant crosses), which conceal a secret reliquary.