The Third major insight is the existence of primary and the secondary states of affaire in every aspect of our psychological life. The paper On Narcissism (1913) was almost an obituary of the libido theory, and the formation of a need for either a new ‘dynamo’ for functional explanations of psychological life, or new conception of psychological life that could be explained neither by the libido theory nor anything external to the psychological phenomenon itself. Freud went back to the concept of Trieb which the libido idea emerged from (The Three Essays on Sexuality 1905) and to the concept of Repression; his first psychoanalytic concept. Those two concepts got two major shifts, in his thinking in his Papers on Metapsychology (1915). His dormant intuition made him rediscover that “…  ‘an instinct’ appears to us as a concept on the frontier between the mental and the somatic, as the psychical representative of the stimulus originating from within the organism an reaching the mind …”. He also distinguishing between two phases in repression: primal repression which “consists in the psychical(ideational)representative of the instinct being denied entrance into consciousness. Then comes repression proper, when primary repression seems to be failing in keeping the instinctual out of consciousness” (1915, 148). Freud’s third intuition-like his foundational intuition of the psychical representing the subject- did not catch the attention of psychoanalysts because they did not have an obvious or direct impact on clinical work, though, anything ‘psychological’ is a transformation of something somatic or mental. Therefore, the intuition that there are primary and secondary operation behind whatever we deal with as psychoanalysts (regardless of our specialty) is essential in our understanding of “analyzation”. We should not be searching for something unconscious about the patient that is not in his free association; find the unconscious in the patient’s conscious speech. I have to interrupt here to make a point: it is not important if Freud recognized fully or consciously the extent of his intuitions. It is our duty to bring out of his intuitions what we could and might be able to develop and advance our specialty. It is a duty to keep advancing psychoanalysis and avoid being fixated on something old. Freud’s greatness is exactly this.

The duality of repression’s make-up is very significant and instrumental in giving the unconscious the qualifications for its existence. Th duality of repression suggests that there must be a quantitative or qualitative gap between them. That gap is as part of human’s nature, because without it there would not be a psychical life. A wave of rage has to be primarily repressed and to be turned into psychical or mental representation of that rage. The facility of representation is what turns the urge to respond into a wish to react to the repressed rage. Thus, the rage could be properly repressed. The gap in the duality of repression is either the facilitator of the birth of psychological life, or the manifestation of psychological life. We do not differ in our somatic needs, but we differ in what wishes those needs generate. Our specific need could be shared by others but its transformation into wish is quite difficult to be exact like another person’s. Our differences start with our wishes, the unconscious condition of its repression, or finding the proper language to express it. The unconscious is a constant and inherent part of psychical life because there is a continuous process of repressing urges into wishes and generating gaps between the conscious and the repressed, i.e., the unconscious.

The forth major insight is the duality of human subject; heis a dual being, i.e., everything the subject is, is a duality. Dealing with this attribute of the human subject requires keeping in mind that although psychoanalysis is a human science it is very unique in a subtle way: Psychoanalysis studies the human subject directly through his personal attributes, while other humanities study the subject via his manifestations, like social institutions, politics, morality, religion, his reactions to new technology, etc. Psychoanalysis educes the subject from his condition, while the rest of the humanities deduce the subject from his social displays. Better, while the subject in the humanities is a unit in a social act, like marriage for instance, the subject’s marriage in psychoanalysis is sort of a ‘text’ about him. It tells things about him. This distinction makes us confront something about the psyche that psychoanalysis, or Freud’s forth insight, introduced to the world of the humanities. P. Ricoeur (1970.p475) said: “A reader familiar with Hegelian [dialectical philosophy] cannot help but notice the constant use of opposition in the structure of Freud’s concepts [which are consistently dichotomous] …it is true that dichotomy is not necessarily a dialectic, and that each dichotomy has a different sense. But his [Freud]style of opposition is ultimately involved in the birth of meaning; his dichotomy is already dialectical”. Freud, intuited that whatever we try to understand about the subject, deductively or inductively, imposes on us to put it in the context of a duality. In my last publication I stipulated several dualities as part of our psychological inheritance. I will mention here three:  I-Me, consciousness- unconscious, and manifest and latent. The subject is ‘his’ self and also an object to himself. When he speaks, he uses the pronoun of the first person, I; but when he speaks about himself, which he could and does all the time, he uses the objective pronoun Me.  He can be his-self and an object to himself. We can not be able to understand ‘sadism’ without mentioning (thinking of) masochism, because if we do not, we will confuse sadism with simple aggression. Even consciousness has to be defined by contrasting it with unconsciousness, so it would not mean awareness or cognition. We never deal with any message that comes to us from our external world-even our internal world too- that we do not give it our own twist of meaning. We are constantly trying to find, create, improve our conception\perception. So, we live in a world that is conceive of as a duality of manifest issue and latent meaning. In general, Freud’s forth insight is giving the obvious of ourselves the not so obvious meaning. 

Freud’s insight about the duality of the subject-with all its implications-is still a feature that is rarely noticed, and less so, in its importance in the practice of psychoanalysis (clinical and none clinical). The next and last part of this post will be dedicated to convincing the current retiring psychoanalysts that it is more sensible to give a chance to a new psychoanalysis that comes from the academic style of thinking. This call will show that we need to revive the intuitions that gave birth to psychoanalysis, and to only reveal its latent and neglected attributes that were fundamental in the past. It is illogical that an ideology of the subject that was largely very successful for 80-90 years to vanish-or deteriorate that badly, without leaving behind the seeds of a new one. This is our test: to replace contemporary psychoanalysis with a better and new one that comes out of it, but through academic thinking. We-the old generations analysts- have to refuse accepting current psychoanalysis, because it is already dead, not just in clinical practice and IPA experience but as a viable theory of many human characteristic. We are not able -since the time of the schools- to revive it. Something else has to be taken care of the new generation of seekers of learning and training have to understand that the easy way to become psychoanalyst in the IPA system of learning and training would only lead to fakeness and frustration. Psychoanalysis is knowledge that is worthy of an academic program and full-time dedication.