Rough Notes:

Myth, Metaphor, and the Evolution of Self-Awareness

Terry Marks-Tarlow, Private Practice, Santa Monica, CA, USA

 

 

ABSTRACT

Classic myths survive generation after generation, because they teach people how to perceive and respond to the surrounding world. Myths supply a set of embodied metaphors to live by. This paper examines the relationship between myth, metaphor, and self-awareness. The myth of Oedipus is revisited using lenses   of interpersonal neurobiology and second-order cybernetics, where observers become self-referentially entangled with the observed. Whereas Freud interpreted the Oedipus story literally, this paper examines the myth self-referentially. By looking inward rather than outward, early relational trauma plus implicit learning provide clues to life’s external riddles and uncertainties. Wisdom gleaned from this ancient myth lines up with contemporary computational studies, when the capacity for self-reference is interpreted as a Universal Turing Machine with full memory—both implicit and explicit—for its own past. A cybernetic perspective dovetails with research on the neurobiology of memory and cognitive studies from developmental psychology. The same mental skills required for self-reference and metaphorical thinking within individuals signal internal complex- ity and mature cognition collectively necessary to enter the modern arena of self-reflective consciousness.

 

Keywords:       Complexity, Metaphor, Myth, Oedipus, Paradox of Self-Reference, Psychoanalysis, Second- Order Cybernetics, Universal Turing Machines

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Newtonian physics implied the universe was a vastmachine—thequantummodelshowedthere is no machine, but a mysterious entanglement with the observer. The area of preparation must now include the participant observer. Newto- nian physics suggested an end to free will and creativity—thequantummodelputtheobserver back into the universe as a participant/creator. (William Brandon Shanley)

During ancient times, myths were passed on as stories told from generation to generation. Yet, for most of contemporary Western society, it is not ancient tales but instead modern science andmathpredominantlyguidetheway.Ancient tales—of Greek heroes and Gods, of Buddha, Arjuna, and the Ramayana—are still around, but have fallen largely into collective shadows. Especially in written form, the classics easily lose their luster compared with the bright icons and shiny features of computers, ipads, tablets, and other digital devices.

DOI: 10.4018/ijsss.2014010104

Our collective excitement is drawn toward science partly because of its concrete power to transforminformation, communication, andthe general quality of life. Science and especially physics comprise our culture’s contemporary creation mythology (Marks-Tarlow, 2003). Whereas the 19th century Newtonian model of physics separated observers cleanly from the realm of the observed, 20th and 21st century models offer inner and outer worlds more fully and reflexively blended (see Orsucci & Sala, 2008; 2012). In gaming technologies, virtual avatars take the place of real bodies, while in medical research, thoughts drive prosthetic limbs (Peck, 2012).

Of all forms of contemporary science, in- ner and outer worlds appear blend in fantastic, even surreal ways, within quantum physics. Quantum entanglement, nonlocality, and the uncertainty paradox are just a few ideas that shake our sense of ordinary reality to the core. This is the stuff of modern fairytales, a good example of which is the book, Alice and the Quantum Cat (Shanley, 2011). Written in the tradition of Martin Gardner (1999), author of The Annotated Alice, Shanley introduces his book as “A Twenty-First Century Myth.” Its chapters are written by physicists, e.g., Amit Goswami (e.g., 1995) and FredAlan Wolf (e.g., 1995), andchaosandcomplexitytheorists, e.g., John Briggs and David Peat (e.g., 2000), who regularly popularize physics in service of new ways to think, see, and be in the world. The book’s main character, the Quantum Cat, is a blend of the Cheshire Cat, whose smile appears out of nowhere, and Schrödinger’s Cat, who embodies the quantum paradox of existing and not existing simultaneously. With Alice as his sidekick, the Quantum Cat battles a sterile, Newtonian, mechanisticworld, whereobservers and observed are so antiseptically separated as to threaten their very aliveness:

In Newton’s world, ambiguity was the en- emy—mechanism stresses the absolute, the unchangingandthecertain—thingsare‘either/ or,’ ‘good/bad.’ In  the  quantum  world real-

ity is ‘both/and’—a coexistence of mutually contradictory possibilities, all equally true, each one a potentially possible constituent of reality. Acausal, non-local synchronicities can give rise to events that seem to ‘pop-up’ out of thin air. There are no isolated, separate, closed systemsin Nature. In thisuniverseofwholeness, everythingaffectseverythingelse, fromthemost fundamental particles to faraway galaxies at the edge of the universe.

 

The central theme of Shanley’s quantum tales is the Observer Effect, through which the awareness of observers forms deep, invisible foundationsformaterialexistence. Withobserv- ers and observed intertwined to the point of full interpenetration, this world view implies a radicallyrelationalperspective. Hereitbecomes absurd to try to parse out isolated elements, people, or traditional concepts of cause and ef- fect. Much akin to the worldviews revealed by Maya’s veil within Hinduism or the Indra’s net within Buddhism, the appearance of observers as separated from observed is mere illusion, born of evolutionary needs for survival. And so mythology of contemporary science dovetails with ancient mystical and spiritual traditions the world over (Marks-Tarlow, 2003; 2008).

Just as The Quantum Cat uses science to illustrate microscopic truths, so too does this paper use science to reveal deep truths implicit within the neurobiological weave of our social and relational worlds. After a section on myth broadly, I next return to the myth of Oedipus. I explore the Riddle of the Sphinx as a paradox of self-reference, which Oedipus is uniquely positioned to answer precisely because  of  his own traumatic origins. Within Oedipus’s relentless search for truth, we will see how recursive, self-referential loops in conscious- ness increase cognitive capacity, enabling the leap from concrete to metaphorical thought. By using second-order, cybernetics to explore the dynamic, embodied unconscious of Oedi- pus, observer and observed remain hopelessly entangled, this time at macroscopic levels of body, brain, and relationship.

THE SELF-REFERENTIAL ROLE OF MYTH

Throughouthistory, mythologyhasinspiredthe psychology of everyday life at implicit levels. Myths help to organize cultural categories and mores by supplying archetypal stories with roles, rules, and relationships that are prescrip- tive. Speculation exists that ancient and tradi- tional peoplesexperiencedmythsquiteliterally (e.g., Jaynes, 1976), with people hearing the voices of Gods as if from the outside, speaking to them personally from above in order to guide thebehaviorofmortalsbelow. Overtime, people have come to hold myths more metaphorically, where they serve the role of “as-if” tales that point toward universal themes, predicaments, and solutions. Finally, over recent decades, the social sciences, particularly psychology, have shifted focus to view myths in increasingly symbolic and self-referential terms. Especially since Jung’sgroundbreakingwork(e.g., 1961), contemporary analyses examine myths as they illuminate the inner world and culture of the mythmakers themselves.

If one myth that rises above all others to signal entry into modern consciousness, it is the ancient Greek tale of Oedipus. This story has beenanalyzedthroughoutthemillenniabywell- known thinkers, such as Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Lévi-Strauss, Lacan and Ricoeur. Some (e.g., Lévi-Strauss, 1977; Ricoeur, 1970) have understood the myth as the individual quest for personal origins or identity. Others (e.g., Aristotle, 1982, Nietzsche, 1871/1999) have used sociopolitical and cultural lenses  to focus on the tale’s prohibitions against the verytaboositillustrates. Indeed, this cautionary tale’s prohibitions against infanticide, patricide and incest helped to establish the modern day state. This was accomplished partly by erect- ing boundaries to protect society’s youngest and most vulnerable members, and partly by prohibitions serving as a kind of social glue  to bind individuals into larger collective units. Evolutionarily,  these  prohibitions  have pre-

vented inbreeding, while maximizing chances for survival and healthy propagation within the collective gene pool.

Perhaps the most prominent analyst of the Oedipus myth has been Sigmund Freud. At the inception of psychoanalysis, this myth proved central to Freud’s psychosexual developmental theory as well as to his topographical map of thepsyche. Thatthistragicherokilledhisfather and then married and seduced his mother oc- cupied the psychological lay of the land, so to speak, immortalized as the “Oedipal complex.” Whereas Freud (1900) viewed the myth quite literally, in terms of impulses and fantasies towards real people, his successor Jung (1956) interpreted it more symbolically, in terms of intrapsychic aspects of healthy individuation. My main purpose in revisiting early ori- gins of psychoanalysis that pivot around the Oedipal myth is to re-examine the narrative from a second-order cybernetic point of view. Cyberneticsisthestudyofinformation; second- order cybernetics views information science self-referentially by implicating the observer within the observed (see Heims, 1991). From the vantage point of self-reference, the Oedi- pus story yields important clues about how the modern psyche became more complex via recursive loops in consciousness. Such internal feedback loops in body, brain, and mind allow implicit memories to become explicit, leading to an increased, more complex capacity     for

self-reflection.

In sections to follow, I refresh the reader’s memory first by briefly reviewing the Oedipus myth. Then I reason to a new level of abstrac- tion, by applying the approach of Lévi-Strauss to treat themythstructurally. Iviewthe Sphinx’s riddle as a paradox of self-reference and argue that both the riddle of the Sphinx and the life course of Oedipus bear structural similarities that signify the self-reflective search for ori- gins. I examine the shift from a literal Freudian interpretation to a more symbolic Jungian one within the early history of psychoanalysis and then show how Freud’s interest in the Oedipus

myth was itself self-referentially re-enacted in real life through his struggles for authority with Carl Jung.

Next I follow Feder (1974) to examine Oedipus clinically. Oedipus’ relentless search for the truth of his origins, combined with his ultimate difficulty accepting what he learns, appears at least partly driven by psychobio- logical symptoms of separation and adoption trauma combined with the physical abuse of attempted murder by his biological father. In theprocess, I linkcontemporaryresearchonthe psychoneurobiology of implicit versus explicit memory with a cybernetic perspective and the power of Universal Turing Machines able with full access to implicit and explicit memory. Finally, I claim that affective, imagistic, and cognitiveskillsnecessarytomovedevelopmen- tally from concrete to metaphorical thinking, and eventually to full self-actualization, relate to implicit cognition within Lakoff’s (1999) embodied philosophy as well as to mature, abstract cognition within Piaget’s (e.g., Flavell, 1963) developmental psychology. Recursive loops in consciousness, by which the observer can be detected within the observed, signal enhanced internal complexity (Marks-Tarlow, 2008, 2012) and the power of self-reflection to break intergenerational chains of abusers unwittingly begetting abusers.

Please note that although I refer to Sig- mund Freud amply throughout this paper, my purpose is primarily historical and contextual. I do not intend to appeal to Freud as the ulti- mate authority so much as the originator of psychoanalysis and precursor to contemporary thought and practice. Especially since Jeffrey Masson (1984) documented Freud’s projection of his own neuroses onto his historical and mythological analyses, including the invention of patients to justify his theories, Freud largely has been de-centered, if not dethroned, within most contemporary psychoanalytic communi- ties. Yet, contemporary neuropsychoanalysis reinstates some of Freud’s early claims about the nature of the human unconscious (Schore, 2011; 2012; Solms, 2004; Solms & Turnbaull, 2002). Meanwhile, throughlensofinterpersonal

neurobiology, one of the implicit themes drawn out by the myth of Oedipus highlights intersub- jectivity as adopted by more present day forms of relational psychoanalysts (e.g., Bromberg, 1998; Mitchell,1988; Stern, 1983). Along with revealing roots of these contemporary trends, I hope my reading of Oedipus helps to reinstate the majesty of this myth to the human plight, without sacrificing the many gains and insights gleaned by psychoanalysts and other psycho- therapists since Freud’s time.

THE MYTH OF OEDIPUS

 

There is anancient folk belief that awisemagus can be born only from incest; our immediate interpretation of this, in terms of Oedipus the riddle solver and suitor of his own mother, is that for clairvoyant and magical powers to have broken the spell of the present and the future, the rigid law of individuation and the true magic nature itself, the cause must have been monstrous crime against nature—incest in this case, for how could nature be forced to offer up her secrets if not by being triumphantly resisted—by unnatural acts? (from Frederick Nietzsche’s, The Birth of Tragedy)

In the myth of Oedipus, which dates back to Greekantiquity, King Laiusof Thebeswasmar- ried to Queen Jocasta, but the marriage was bar- ren. Desperate to conceive an heir, King Laius consulted the oracle ofApollo at Delphi, only to receiveashockingprophecy—thecoupleshould remain childless. Any offspring of this union would grow up to murder his father and marry his mother. Laius ordered Jocasta confined within a small palace room and placed under strict prohibitions against sleeping with him.

But Jocasta was not to be stopped. She conceived a plot to intoxicate and mate with her husband. The plot worked, and a son was born. Desperate once again to prevent fulfillment of the oracle, Laius ordered that the boy’s ankles be pinned together and that he be left upon a mountainslopetodie. Buttheshepherdwhowas earmarked to carry out this order took pity on

the boy and delivered him instead to yet another shepherd. This second shepherd brought the woundedboyto King Polybusintheneighboring realm of Corinth. Polybus, who suffered from a barren marriage, promptly adopted the boy as hisown. Duetohispiercedankles, thechildwas called “Oedipus.” This name, which translates either tomean“swollenfoot” or“know-where,” is telling, given Oedipus’ life-long limp plus his relentless search to “know-where” he came from. I return to the self-referential quality of Oedipus’ name in a later section.

As Oedipus matured, he overheard rumors that King Polybus was not his real father. Oedi- pus was eager to investigate his true heritage, and unwittingly following in the footsteps of his biological father, he visited the oracle at Delphi. The oracle grimly prophesized that Oedipus would murder his father and marry his mother. Oedipuswashorrifiedbytheprophesy; much like his biological father before him,  he attempted to avoid this fate. Still believ- ing Polybus his real father, Oedipus decided not to return home. Instead, he took the road from Delphi towards Thebes, rather than back toward Corinth.

Unaware of the underlying situation, Oe- dipus met his biological father, who appeared to him as a stranger at the narrow crossroads of the three paths both separating and connecting the cities of Delphi, Corinth and Thebes. King Laius ordered the boy out of the way in order that royalty may pass. Oedipus responded that he himself was a royal prince of superior status. Laius ordered his charioteer to advance in order to strike Oedipus with his goad. Enraged, Oe- dipus grabbed the goad, in the process striking and killing Laius plus four of his five retainers. This left a single witness to tell the tale.

Upon Laius’ death appeared the Sphinx, a lithe monster perched high on the mountain. This creature possessed the body of a dog, the claws of a lion, the tail of a dragon, the wings of a bird and the breasts and head of a woman. The Sphinx began to ravage Thebes, stopping every mountain traveler attempting to enter the city unless they solved her riddle:

What goes on four feet in the morning, two at midday and three in the evening?

 

Whereas the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi revealed a glimpse of the future to her visitors, often concealed in the form of a riddle, the Sphinx, by contrast, killed anyone unable to answer her riddle correctly. The Sphinx either ate or hurled her victims to their death on the rocks below. Until the arrival of Oedipus, the riddle remained unsolved. With no visitors able to enter the city, trade in Thebes had become strangled and the treasury depleted.

Confrontedbythe Sphinx’sriddle, Oedipus responded correctly and without hesitation, to indicate that it is “mankind” who crawls on four legs in the morning, stands on two in midday and leans on a cane as a third in the twilight of life. The Sphinx was horrified at being outwit- ted, andrespondedbyself-referentiallyapplying the punishment she had meted out to others to herself: she cast herself to her death on the rocks far below. As a consequence, Thebes was freed. As reward for saving the city, Oedipus was offered its throne plus the hand of the de- ceased king’s widow Jocasta. Still unaware of his true origins, Oedipus accepted both honors. He ruled Thebes and married his mother, with whom he multiplied fruitfully. In this manner, Oedipus fulfilled the second part of the oracle. But the city of Thebes was not finished suffering and soon was stricken with a horrible plague and famine, rendering all production barren. Out of eagerness to end the affliction, Oedipus once again consulted the oracle. This time, he was told that in order to release Thebes from its current plight, the murderer of Laius must be found. Because he wanted only what was best for the city, Oedipus relentlessly pur- sued a quest for truth. He made an important declaration: whenever Laius’ murderer was found, the offender would be banished forever

from Thebes.

In line with his blind search for Laius’ murderer, Oedipus called in the blind prophet Tiresias to help. But Tiresias refused to reveal what he knew. In the meantime, Jocasta intuited

the truth and dreaded the horror of her sins exposed. Unable to bear what she saw, Jocasta committed suicide by hanging herself. Soon Oedipus discovered that the one he sought was none other than himself. After learning that he hadindeedfulfilledthe Oraclebymurderinghis father and marrying his mother, Oedipus was also unable to bear what he saw. Tearing off a brooch from Jocasta’s hanging body, Oedipus blindedhimself. Hethenfacedtheconsequence that he himself had determined most just. As Laius’banishedmurderer, Oedipuswasledinto exile by his sister/daughter Antigone.

Hereendedthefirstof Sophocle’stragedies, “King Oedipus.” The second and third of this ancient Greek trilogy, “Antigone” and “Oedi- pus at Colonus,” detail Oedipus’ and his sister/ daughter’s extensive wanderings. Oedipus’ tragicinsightintounwittinglyhavingcommitted these crimes of passion brought the mature man eventually out of suffering and into wisdom. In later years, Oedipus reached a mysterious end in Colonus, near Athens, amidst the utmost respect from his countrymen. Despite his sins, Oedipus ended his life with the blessings of the Gods. Incompletionofonemoreself-referential loop, Oedipus’ personal insight in-formed the very land itself, as Colonus became an oracular center and source of wisdom for others.

NEW TWISTS TO AN ANCIENT MYTH

To Freud, the tale of Oedipus was initially con- ceived in terms of real sexual and aggressive impulses towards real parents. Later, he revised hisseductiontheory, bydownplayingincestuous desires to the level of fantasy and imaginary impulses. Within Freud’s three-part, structural modelofthepsyche, the Idwasthecontainerfor unbridled, unconscious, sexual and aggressive impulses; the Super-Ego was a repository for social and societal norms; and the Ego was as- signed the difficult task of straddling these two inner, warring factions, by mounting defenses and mediating the demands and restrictions of outside reality. We easily detect the influence of

Freud’s military background within metaphors he chooses to detail his conflict model of the psyche (Berkower, 1970).

According to Freud, symptoms formed out of the tension between conscious and un- conscious factors, including conflicting needs both to repress and express. Among many different kinds of anxiety Freud highlighted, an important symptom was castration anxiety. This was the fear that one’s incestuous desire for one’s mother would be discovered by the father and punished by him with castration. Both desire for the mother and fear of castration becamesourcesofmurderousimpulsestowards the father. Working through these feelings and symptoms consisted of lifting the repression barrier and thereby gaining insight into the unconscious origins of the conflict.

Note that Freud’s developmental model of thepsychewasprimarilyintrapsychic. Because he emphasized the Oedipal complex as a Uni- versal struggle within the internal landscape of all (theadaptationforgirlsbecameknownasthe “Electra” complex, in honor of another famous Greek tragedy), it mattered little how good or bad a child’s parenting. Most contemporary psychoanalytictheories, suchasobjectrelations (e.g., Klein, 1932), self-psychology(e.g., Kohut, 1971), intersubjectivity theory (e.g., Stolorow, Brandchaft & Atwood, 1987), and relational psychoanalysts(e.g., Bromberg, 1998; Mitchell, 1988; Stern, 1983); have abandoned the impor- tance of the Oedipus myth partly by adopting a more interpersonal focus. Within each of these newer therapies, psychopathology is believed to develop out of real emotional exchanges (or the absence of them) between infants and their caregivers. Symptoms are maintained, re- enacted, andideallyalteredwithintherelational context of the analyst/patient dyad.

LIFE IMITATING THEORY

Prior to these relational theories, near the ori- gins of psychoanalysis, the myth of Oedipus took on an ironic, self-referential twist when it became embodied in real life. Carl Jung,   a

brilliant follower of Freud, had been earmarked as the “royal son” and “crown prince” slated to inherit Freud’spsychoanalyticempire(see Jung, 1961; Kerr, 1995; Monte & Sollod, 2003). The early intimacyandintellectualpassionbetween these two men gave way to great bitterness and struggle surrounding Jung’s creative and spiritualideas. Inhisautobiography, Jung(1961,

1. 150) describes Freud as imploring: “My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. This is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark…against the black tide of mud…of occultism.”

For Jung, Freud’s topography of the psyche maps only the most superficial level, the “personal unconscious,” which contains personal memories and impulses towards specific people. Partly on the basis of a dream, Jung excavated another, even deeper, stratum he called the “collective unconscious.” This level had a transpersonal flavor, containing archetypal patterns common in peoples of all cultures and ages.

By acting as if there was room only for what Jung called the “personal unconscious” within the psyche’s subterranean zone, Freud appeared compelled to re-enact the Oedipus struggle in real life. He responded to Jung as if to a son attempting to murder his symbolic father. This dynamic was complicated by yet another, evenmoreconcrete, levelofenactment: both men reputedly competedover the loyalties of the same woman, initially Jung’s patient and lover, later Freud’s confident, Sabina Speilrein, (see Kerr, 1995).

Freudand Jungactedouttheclassic Oedipal myth at multiple levels, with Jung displacing Freud both professionally (vanquishing the King) and sexually (stealing the Queen). An explosion ensued when the conflict could no longer be contained or resolved. As a result, the relationship between Freud and Jung sev- ered permanently. Jung suffered what some believe was a psychotic break (see Hayman, 1999), while others termed it a “creative   ill-

ness” (see Ellenberger, 1981), from which he recovered to mine the symbolic wealth of his own unconscious.

Jung overcame his symbolic father partly byrejectingthe Oedipusmythinfavorof Faust’s tale. “Jung meant to make a descent into the depths of the soul, there to find the roots of man’s being in the symbols of the libido which had been handed down from ancient times, and so to find redemption despite his own genial psychoanalyticpactwiththedevil”(Kerr, 1995,

1. 326). After his break with Freud, Jung self- referentially embodied his own theories about individuation taking the form of the hero’s journey.

Whereas Jung underscored the sun-hero’s motifandroleofmythicalsymbols, mythologist Joseph Campbell (1949/1973) differentiated three phases of the hero’s journey: separation (from ordinary consciousness), initiation (into thenightjourneyofthesoul) andreturn(integra- tion back into consciousness and community). This description certainly fits Jung’s departure from ordinary sanity, his nightmarish descent into haunting symbols, if not hallucinations, and his professional return to create depth psychology. Jung’sinteriordescentandjourney is chronicled in writing and pictures in the Red Book. Although this 205 journal was written between 1914 and 1930, following Jung’s fallout with Freud, it was released publically only in 2009, due to decades of suppression by Jung’s heirs.

Jung and his followers have regarded the Oedipus myth less literally than Freud. In hero mythology, as explicated by one of Jung’s most celebratedfollowers, Eric Neumann(1954/93), to murder the father generally and the King in particular, was seen as symbolic separation from an external source of authority, in order to discoverandbeinitiatedintoone’sowninternal source of guidance and wisdom.

Whereas Freud viewed the unconscious primarily in terms of its negative, conflict- riddenpotential, Jungrecognizedtheunderlying universal and positive potential of the   fertile

feminine. But in order to uncover this positive side, one first had to differentiate and confront the destructive shadow of the feminine. At the archetypal level, some aspects of the feminine can feel life threatening. To defeat the Sphinx was seen as conquering the Terrible Mother. In her worst incarnation, the Terrible Mother reflected the potential for deprivation and de- structive narcissism within the real mother. In some cultures, e.g., the Germanic fairytale of Hanseland Gretel, the Terrible Motherappeared as the Vagina Dentate, or toothed vagina, a can- nibalistic allusion not to the Freudian fear of castration by the father, but rather to the Jung- ian anxiety about emasculation by the mother. Symbolically, once the dark side of the Terrible Mother was vanquished, her positive potential could be harvested. To have incest and fertilize themotherrepresentedovercomingfear of the feminine, of her dark chaotic womb, in order to tap into riches of the unconscious and bring new life to the psyche. Psychologically we can see how Sphinx and incest fit together for Neumann (1954/93): The hero killed the Mother’s terrible female side so as to liberate her fruitful and bountiful aspect. For Jung, to truly individuate was to rule the kingdom of our own psyche, by overthrowing the father’s masculine influence of power, the ultimate authority of consciousness, while fertilizing and pillaging the mother’s feminine territory, thatof theunconscious. Bybreakingwith Freud and finding his way through his psychosis, Jung killed the King and overcame the Terrible Mother to harvest her symbolism for his own creative development, both in theory and self. Judging from the drama of real life, both Freud and Jung arrived at their ideas at least partly self-referentially by living them out. Along with affirming Ellenberger’s (1981) notion of “creative illness,” this coincides with Stolorow’sthesisthatallsignificantpsychologi- cal theory derives from the personal experience and worldview of its originators (Atwood   &

Stolorow, 1979/1993).

RIDDLE AS PARADOX

As mentioned, in the last several decades, the Freudian interpretation of the Oedipus story largely has been laid aside. With the early ad- vent of feminism, the significance of the tale to a woman’s psyche was challenged. With the recognition that sexual abuse was often real and not just fantasy, later feminist thought challenged Freud’s early abandonment of his seduction theory. As knowledge about the neurophysiology of the posttraumatic stress condition increased, so has clinical interest in “vertical,” dissociative splits between cortical andsubcorticalaspectsofthebrain(e.g., Lanius, Vermetten & Pain, C., 2010; Rothschild, 2000; Schore, 2007; 2012), versus the “horizontal” splits maintaining Freud’s repression barrier (see Kohut, 1977). Greater relational emphasis among contemporary psychoanalysts shifts interest towardsearlymother/infantattachment dynamics, as well as toward here-and-now relations between psychotherapist and patient. Finally, the current climate of multiculturalism disfavors any single theory, especially one universalizing development.

In the spirit of Levi-Strauss, I propose a different way of looking at the Oedipus myth. I aim to harvest meaning primarily by sidestep- ping narrative content to derive an alternative interpretation both structural and cybernetic in nature. When understood literally,  both the “improbable” form the Sphinx embodies plus her impossible-seeming riddle present paradoxes that appear to contradict all known laws of science. Surely no creature on earth can literally walk on four, two and then three limbs during the very same day. With the possible exception of the slime mold, no animal changes its form of locomotion this radically; and not even the slime mold undergoes such complete metamorphosis in the course of a single day.

The Sphinx’s riddle presents the type of “ordinary” paradox that science faces all the time. Here, paradox is loosely conceptualized

asasetoffactsthatcontradictscurrentscientific theory. Just as Darwin’s embodied evolution proceeds in fits and starts (e.g., Gould, 1977), so toodoestheabstractprogressionofscientific theory. Kuhn (1962) described the erratic evo- lution of scientific theory, when resolution of ordinarycontradictionleadstoabruptparadigm shifts thatofferwider, moreinclusivecontextsin whichtoincorporatepreviouslydiscrepantfacts. Beyond this type of “ordinary” scientific paradox, the Sphinx’s riddle  was essentially a paradox of self-reference (Marks-Tarlow, 2008a, 2008b, and 2008c). Within the history of mathematics, paradoxes of self-reference have arisen since ancient Greek times. A good example is The Liar: “This sentence is a lie,” which is true only if false, and false only if true. Paradoxes of self-reference ultimately destroyed all hopes of mathematics supplying a logical foundation that is entirely complete and consistent. Instead, paradoxes of self-reference require creative leaps outside of their normal parameters, which is exactly what Oedipus accomplished by solving the Sphinx’s riddle. The solution—humanity—required a leap under the surface to deep understanding of the nature of being human, including knowledge of self. In order to know what crawls on four legs in the morning, walks on two in midday and hobbles on three in the evening, Oedipus had to understand the entire human life cycle. He needed to possess intimate familiarity with physical changes in the body, ranging from the dependency of infancy, through the  glory

of maturity, to the waning powers of old age. To  approach  the  riddle  without  self-

reference was to look outwards, to use a literal understanding, and to miss a metaphorical interpretation. To approach the riddle with self-reference was to seek knowledge partly by becoming introspective. At a deep, somatic level, Oedipus was uniquely positioned to ap- ply the riddle to himself. Almost killed at birth and still physically handicapped, he harbored virtual, vestigial memories of death in life. His limp and cane were whispers of a helpless past and harbingers of a shattered future.

Self-referentially, Oedipus’ownlifetrajec- toryshowedthesamethreepartsasthe Sphinx’s riddle. Through the kindness of others Oedipus survived the traumatized helplessness of in- fancy. In his prime, he proved more than able to stand on his own two feet—strong enough to kill a king, clever enough to slay the proverbial monster, and potent enough marry a queen and spawn a covey of offspring. Ironically, in the case of our tragic hero, it was Oedipus’ very in-sight into his own origins that led to the loss of his kingdom and wife/mother, leaving him to hobble around blindly in old age, physically leaning on his cane, and emotionally learning upon the goodness of others, primarily his daughter/sister, Antigone.

Thenamesakeandbodymemoriesof Oedi- pusconnectedhimwithchanceanddestiny, past and future, infancy and old age. Recall that the name Oedipus means both “swollen foot” and “know-where.” Feder(1974/1988) analyzedthe Oedipus myth in terms of the clinical reality of adoption trauma. Like many adopted children, Oedipus was relentlessly driven to seek his own origins in order to “know where” he came from both genetically and socially.

Taking this approach a step further, we can see the impact of early physical abuse— attempted infanticide—on the neurobiology of different memory systems. Oedipus “knows where” he came from implicitly in his body due to his “swollen foot,” even while ignorant of traumatic origins explicitly in his mind. This kind of implicit memory has gained much attention in recent clinical lore (e.g., Bucci, 2011; Cortina & Liotti, 2007; Fosshage, 2011; Mancia, 2006; Marks-Tarlow, 2011, 2012, 2013; Rothschild, 2000; Ruth-Lyons, 1998; Schore,

2010, 2011, 2012; Siegel, 2001). In early infant development, implicitmemory is thefirstkindto develop. Implicitlearningincludesunconscious processing of exteroceptive information from the outer world as well as interoceptive infor- mation from the inner world. Such information helps tune ongoing perception and emotional self-regulation in the nonverbal context of re- lationships with others. In this way contingent

versus non-contingent responses of caretakers become hardwired into the brain and body via particular neural pathways. While alluded to by others, e.g., Ornstein (1973) and Allan Schore (2001; 2010; 2011; 2012) specifically proposed that implicit memory exists within the right, nonverbal, hemisphere of the human cerebral cortex to constitute the biological substrate for Freud’s unconscious instincts and memories. Although hotly contested, neurobiological evidence mounts for Freud’s repression barrier as hardwired into the brain (e.g., Solms, 2004). Schore proposed a vertical model of the psyche, where the conscious, verbal, mind is localized in the left hemisphere of the brain, while the unconscious and body memory is mediatedbythenonverbalrighthemisphere(for most right handed people). The hemispheres of the brain and these different modes of process- ing are conjoined as well as separated by the corpus callosum, with the perspective of only one hemisphere coming forward at any given time (McGilchrist, 2009). Early trauma plus his secret origins caused a haunting and widening of the gap between what Oedipus’ body knew versus what Oedipus’ mind knew. Oedipus’ implicit memory of his early abandonment and abuse becamethe invisible thread that provided deep continuity despite abrupt life changes. His implicit memory offered a clue to the com- monality beneath the apparent disparity in the

Sphinx’s three-part riddle.

Structurally, to solve the riddle became equivalent to Oedipus’ self-referential quest for explicit memory of his own origins. This interpretation meshes with anthropologist Lévi-Strauss’ (1977) emphasis on structural similarities within and between myths, plus the near universal concern with human origins. It also dovetails with Bion’s (1983, p. 46) self- referential understanding of the Sphinx’s riddle as “man’s curiosity turned upon himself.” In the form of self-conscious examination of the personality by the personality, Bion uses the Oedipus myth to illuminate ancient origins of psychoanalytic investigation.

METAPHORICAL THINKING IN COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

In order to solve both the riddle of the Sphinx as well as that of his own origins, Oedipus had to delve beneath the concrete level of surface appearances. Here he’d lived happily, but in ignorance, aschildrenandinnocentsarereputed to do. Ignorance may have been bliss, but it did not necessarily lead to maturity. Prior to Oedipus solving the riddle, humankind lived in an immature state, an idea supported by the work of Julian Jaynes (1976). Writing about the “bicameral mind,” as mentioned earlier, Jaynes speculated that ancient humanity hallucinated gods as living in their midst. Here myths were concretely embodied, serving as externals sourcesofauthoritybeforesuchexecutivefunc- tions became internalized within the cerebral cortex of the modern psyche, including our increased capacities for self-reflection, inner guidance and self-control, all functions of the frontal lobes.

The Sphinx’s riddle was a self-referential mirror reflecting and later enabling explicit memory and knowledge of Oedipus’ traumatic origins. Uponsuccessfullyansweringtheriddle, Oedipus bridged the earlier, developmental territory of the “right mind” with the evolu- tionarily and developmentally later left-brain (see Schore, 2001). In the process, Oedipus healed and matured on many levels. Not only didheaddresshiscastrationfearsbyconquering the Terrible Mother in the form of the Sphinx after killing the Terrible Father, but also and perhaps more significantly, Oedipus made the leap from concrete to metaphorical thinking. By understanding “morning,” “midday” and “evening” as stages of life, he demonstrated creativity and mental flexibility characteristic of internal complexity.

Cognitive linguists Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have suggested that metaphor serves as the embodied basis for all abstract think- ing. More recently, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) argued that metaphor forms part of the implicit

memoryofthecognitiveunconscious, whereits immediate conceptual mapping is hard-wired into the brain. These researchers speculate that all cognitive activity is embodied, because it derives from a primary set of metaphors that surround how the body moves, functions and interacts in the physical and social world in which we are embedded. Verticality and bal- ance are among Lakoff and Johnson’s primary metaphors. This makes a great deal of sense given early developmental milestones. Babies universally shift from the horizontal posture of lying down to more vertical postures by first rolling over, then sitting upright, crawling and eventually rising up to balance and walk on two legs. Each shift is associated with increased mobility, agency and potency in the world. PsychoanalystArnold Modell(2003) haspicked up on the relevance of Lakoff and Johnson by writing extensively on how the body uses meta- phor to bridge disconnected experience, create somatic templates, and weave the illusion of constancyamidstcontinualchange. Meanwhile, I have emphasized the role of spontaneous, embodied metaphors during psychotherapy as portmanteaus, ordoublesignsthatrepresentthe core problems to be addressed in therapy, while simultaneouslypointingtowardtheirsolutions. Lakoff and Johnson’s notions of embodied metaphors also dovetail with Piaget’s devel- opmental epistemology (e.g., Flavell, 1963). Though many details are still disputed, overall Piaget’s theory has remained one of the most importantanduniversalaccountsofintellectual development to date (see Sternberg, 1990). Us- ing careful observation and empirical studies, Piaget mapped the shift from a sensorimotor period of infancy, through the pre- and concrete operations of early childhood, into a formal op- erations stage of later childhood characterizing the adult, “mature” mind. Piaget’s hallmark of maturity involved freedom from the particulars of concrete situations. This grants cognitive flexibility necessary for both abstract and metaphorical thinking. In sum, Oedipus’s leap from concrete to metaphorical thinking can be understoodbothasanimportantdevelopmental step for the individual as well as an important

historical leap in the history of collective con- sciousness.

SELF-REFERENCE AND UNIVERSAL TURING MACHINES

So far, I have suggested that self-reference is centraltoametaphoricalsolutionofthe Sphinx’s riddle. But self-reference also proves to be an essential part of cybernetics, the sciences of information. A computational model views the human psyche as a recursive system, where present behavior depends upon how it has processeditspastbehavior. Withinabstractma- chines, different computational powers depend deterministically upon a system’s retrospective access to memory.

In computational science, power is ranked according to “Chomsky’s hierarchy.” At the bottom of the hierarchy lies the finite state automaton. This machine possesses only implicit memory for its current state. In the middle lies the push-down automaton. This machine possesses explicit memory, but with only temporary access to the past. At the top of Chomsky’s hierarchy lies the Universal Tur- ing Machine. This abstract machine possesses unrestricted, permanent and explicit memory for all past states.

Cyberneticist Ron Eglash (1999) provides a text analogy to contrast these differences: The least powerful machine is like a person who accomplishes all tasks instinctively, without the use of any books; in the middle is a person limited by books removed once they’ve been read; at the top is a person who collects and recollects all books read, in any order. The power of the Universal Turing Machine at the top is its capacity to recognize all computable functions.

The point at which complete memory of past actions is achieved marks a critical shift in computational power. It is the point when full self-reference is achieved, which brings about the second-order, cybernetic capacity of a sys- tem to analyze its own programs. My reading

of the Oedipus myth illustrates this very same point—that powerful instant when full access to memory dovetailed with self-reference to signal another step in the “complexification” of human consciousness (Marks-Tarlow, 2008).

THE RIDDLE AS MIRROR

Just as the Sphinx presented a paradigm of self-reference to hold a mirror up to Oedipus, the myth of Oedipus also holds a mirror up to us as witnesses. The story of Oedipus reflects our own stories in yet another self-referential loop. Like Oedipus, each one of us is a riddle to him or herself. The tale rocks generation after generation so powerfully partly because of this self-referential quality, which forces each one of us to reflect upon our own lives mythically. Throughout the tale, there is dynamic ten- sion between knowing and not-knowing—in Oedipus and in us. Oedipus starts out naïvely not-knowing who he is or where he came from. We start out knowing who Oedipus really is, but blissfully unaware of the truth in ourselves. By the end of the tale, the situation reverses: Oedipus solves all three riddles, that of the Oracle of Delphi, that of the Sphinx and that of his origins, while ironically, we participant/ observers are left not-knowing. We harbor a gnawing feeling of uncertainty—almost as if another riddle has invisibly materialized, as if we face the very Sphinx herself, whose enigma must be answered upon threat of our own death. Eglash (1999) notes that the power of the Universal Turing Machine lies in its ability not to know how many transformations, or applications of an algorithm a system would need ahead of time, before the program could be terminated. Paradoxically, to achieve full uncertainty about the future and its relation- ship to the past is symptomatic of increasing computationalpower. Thiskindoffundamental uncertainty is evident collectively within the modern sciences and mathematics of chaos theory, stochastic analyses, and various forms of indeterminacy. For example, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states the impossibility of

preciselydeterminingbothaquantumparticle’s speed as well as its location at the same time. Meanwhile, chaos theory warns of the impos- sibility of precisely predicting the long-term future of highly complex systems, no matter how precise our formulas or capacity to model their past behavior.

Experientially, we must deal with funda- mental uncertainty with respect to the riddle of our own lives (see Marks-Tarlow, 2003), leaving us ultimately responsible to glean meaning from this self-reflective search. The Oedipus myth presents a self-referential mir- ror through which each one of us individu- ally enters the modern stage of self-reflective consciousness. Capabilities for full memory, to consider the past and future, to contemplate death, to confront paradox, to self-reflect and to consider self-reference all represent critical levels of inner complexity that separate human from animal intelligence, the infant from the mature individual, plus the weakest from the most powerful computing machines.

CONCLUSION

Iendthispaperbyspeculatinghowthiscomplex state of full self-reference serves as a prerequi- site to a fully self-actualized human being. To have thorough access to memory for the past plusthecognitiveflexibilitynottohavetoknow the future represents a state of high integra- tion between left and right brain hemispheres, between body and mind, and between implicit, procedural memory versus explicit memory for events and facts. Such integration maximizes our potential for spontaneous response and creative self-expression that is the hallmark of successful individuation.

Furthermore, Iarguethatthiscomplexstate of “good-enough” self-reflective awareness is necessary to break the tragic intergenerational chain of fate and trauma symbolized by Greek tragedy in general and the Oedipus myth in particular. At the heart of the Oedipus myth lies the observation, echoed by a Greek chorus, that those born into abuse unwittingly grow up  to

become abusers. Laius’ unsuccessful attempt to kill his son all but sealed Oedipus’ fate to escalate this loop of violence by successfully killing his father.

Theonlywayoutofthefatalistictragedyof abusers begetting abusers is to possess enough insight to unearth violent instincts before the deed is done, to exert sufficient self-control to resist and transcend such instincts, plus to tell a cohesive, self-reflective narrative. Multigen- erational, prospective research within the field of attachment (e.g., Siegel, 1999) suggests that the best predictor of healthy, secure attach- ment in children remains the capacity for their parents to tell a cohesive narrative about their early childhood. It matters little whether the quality of this narrative is idyllic or horrific. What counts instead is whether parents possess the self-reflective insight to hold onto specific memoriesconcerningtheirorigins, whichcanbe cohesively woven into the fabric of current life without disruption. This kind of self-referential reflection carries the full computational power of Universal Turing Machine. This provides the necessarymentalfacultiestobreakintergenera- tional chains of emotional and physical abuse. It also allows for creative self-actualization, without a pre-determined script, set upon the stage of an open future.

In life, peoplegainself-awarenessbylook- ing into the mirror of experience self-referen- tially. By looking backwards self-referentially toward past experience, we glean knowledge and meaning for dealing with present circum- stances and moving toward the future wisely. Interestingly, within the field of neurobiology, there is current speculation that the brain itself is deeply intentional and forward looking, right downtothelevelofsinglecells(Freeman, 1999). Rather than representing static pictures from the past, memory is dynamically reconfigured according to ever-shifting present contexts (see Marks-Tarlow, 2008), as it serves the primary function of navigating through uncertainty toward the future. Indeed, the hippocampus, which is the main structure in the mammalian brain devoted to encoding long term memories, evolved out of the part of the brain that depends

upon place cells to record the what and where of current environmental context.

The role of uncertainty in moving with fullest complexity and computational power into the future is evident within new data mining techniques. Without knowing what is sought, these computational algorithms can sift through a mountain of material until clear patterns emerge. Whether such techniques are used wisely in ways consistent with humanistic values, increased self-awareness, and humani- tarianaims, orwhethertheyareabusedinservice of decreasing personal freedoms and further eroding the environment, only time will tell. Either way, both in the wetware of the human brain and in software of the computer, recursive loops continue to ensure that past, present, and future lose distinctive orientations, while ob- servers continue to blend ever more seamlessly with the observed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The first version of this paper appeared under the title, “Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited,” in the Electronic Conference of the Foundations of Information Sciences, May 6-10, 2002.

REFERENCES

 

Aristotle, . (1982). Poetics: Vol. 23. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Atwood, G., & Stolorow, R. (1979/1993). Faces  in a cloud: Intersubjectivity in personality theory. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Berkower, L. (1970). The military influence among Freud’s dynamic psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 127(2), 85–92. PMID:4919635

Bion, W. (1983). Elements of psycho-analysis. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Briggs, J., & Peat, D. (2000). Seven life lessons of chaos: Spiritual wisdom from the science of change. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Bromberg, P. (1998). Standing in the spaces. Hills- dale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Bucci, (2011). The interplay of subsymbolic and symbolic processes in psychoanalytic treatment: It takes two to tango – But who knows the steps, who’s the leader? The choreography of the psychoanalytic interchange. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 21, 45-54.

Campbell, J. (1949/1973). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Bollingen Series, Princeton University.

Cortina, M., & Liotti, G. (2007). New approaches to understanding unconscious processes: Im- plicit and explicit memory systems. Interna- tional Forum of Psychoanalysis, 16, 204–212. doi:10.1080/08037060701676326

Eglash, R.(1999). Africanfractals: Moderncomput- ingandindigenousdesign. Rutgers University Press.

Ellenberger, H. (1981). The discovery of the uncon- scious. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Feder, L. (1974). Adoption trauma: Oedipus myth/ clinical reality. In G. Pollock, & J. Ross (Eds.), The Oedipus papers. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychol- ogy of Jean Piaget. New York, NY: Van Nostrand. doi:10.1037/11449-000

Fosshage, (2011). How do we “know” what we “know?” and change what we “know?” Psychoana- lytic Dialogues, 21, 55-74.

Freeman, W. (1999). Consciousness, intentionality, and causality. Journal of Consciousness Studies,  6, 143–172.

Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, M. (1999). Theannotated Alice. New York, NY: Norton.

Goswami, A. (1995). The self-aware universe. Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher.

Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution recon- sidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115–151.

Hayman, D. (1999). The life of Jung. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Heims, S.(1991). Thecyberneticsgroup. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Jaynes, J. (1976). The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Jung, C. (1956). Symbols of transformation. In Col- lectedworks. London, UK: Routledge& Kegan Paul.

Jung, C.(1961). Memories, dreams, reflections. New York, NY: Random House.

Jung, C.(2009). Theredbook. NewYork, NY: Norton.

Kerr, J. (1995). Amostdangerousmethod. NewYork, NY: Vintage Books/Random House.

Klein, M. (1932). The psycho-analysis of children. London, UK: Hogarth.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolu- tions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Lanius, R., Vermetten, E., & Pain, C. (2010). The impact of early life trauma on health and disease: The hidden epidemic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511777042

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1977). Structural anthropology 1 (C. Jacobson, & B. G. Schoepf, Trans.). Harmond- sworth: Penguin.

Lyons-Ruth, K. (1998). Implicit relational knowing: Its role in development and psy- choanalytic treatment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19(3), 282–289. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0355(199823)19:3<282::AID-IMHJ3>3.0.CO;2-O

Mancia, M. (2006). Implicit memory and early un- repressed unconscious: Their role in the therapeutic process (How the  neurosciences  can  contribute  to psychoanalysis). The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 87, 83–103. PMID:16635862

Marks-Tarlow, T. (2003). The certainty of uncer- tainty. Psychological Perspectives, 45, 118–130. doi:10.1080/00332920308403045

Marks-Tarlow, T. (2008a). Psyche’s veil: Psycho- therapy, fractals and complexity. London, UK: Routledge.

Marks-Tarlow, T. (2008b). Alan Turing meets the sphinx: Some new and old riddles. Chaos & Com- plexity Letters, 3(1), 83–95.

Marks-Tarlow, T. (2008c). Riddle of the sphinx: A paradox of self-reference revealed and reveiled. In Reflecting interfaces: The complex coevolution of information technology ecosystems. Hershey, PA: Idea Group. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-627-3.ch002

Marks-Tarlow, T. (2012). Clinical intuition in psy- chotherapy: Theneurobiologyofembodiedresponse. New York, NY: Norton.

Marks-Tarlow, T. (2013). Awakening clinical intu- ition. New York, NY: Norton.

Masson, J. (1984). The assault on truth: Freud’s suppression of the seduction theory. Horizon Book Promotions.

McGilchrist, I. (2009). The Masterandhisemissary: The divided brain and the making of the Western world. Yale University Press.

Michell, S. (1988). Relational concepts in psycho- analysis: An integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Modell, A. (2003). Imagination and the meaningful brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Monte, C., & Sollod, R. (2003). Beneath the mask: Anintroductiontotheoriesofpersonality. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Neumann, E. (1954/1993). The origins and history of consciousness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.

Nietzsche, F. (1999). The birth of tragedy and other writings (Cambridge texts in the history of philoso- phy). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1871)

Ornstein, R. (Ed., 1973). The nature of human con- sciousness. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Orsucci, F., & Sala, N. (2008). Reflexing inter- faces: The compex coevolution of information technology ecosystems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-627-3

Orsucci, F., & Sala, N. (2012). Complexity sci- ence, living systems, and reflexing interfaces: New models and perspectives. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2077-3

Peck, M. (2012). Prosthetics of the future: Driven by thoughts, powered by bodily fluids. Retrieved from http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/biomedical/de- vices/prosthetics-of-the-future-driven-by-thoughts- powered-by-bodily-fluids

Pollock, G., & Ross, J. (1988). The Oedipus papers. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and philosophy. Cam- bridge, MA: Yale University Press.

Rothschild, B. (2000). The body remembers: The psychophysiology of trauma and trauma treatment. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Schore, A. (2001). Minds in the making: Attach- ment, the self-organizing brain, and develop- mentally-oriented psychoanalytic psychotherapy. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 17(3), 299–328. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0118.2001.tb00593.x

Schore, A. (2010). The right-brain implicit self: A centralmechanismofthepsychotherapychangepro- cess. In J. Petrucelli(Ed.), Knowing, not-knowingand sort of knowing: Psychoanalysis and the experience of uncertainty (pp. 177–202). London, UK: Karnac.

Schore, A. (2011). The right brain implicit self lies at the core of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Psy- choanalytic Dialogues, 21, 75–100. doi:10.1080/1

0481885.2011.545329

Schore, A. (2012). The science of the art of psycho- therapy. New York, NY: Norton.

Shanley, W. (Ed.). (2011). Alice and the quantum cat. Pari, Italy: Pari Publishing.

Siegel, D. (2001). Memory: An overview, with emphasis on developmental, interpersonal, and neurobiological aspects. Journal of the Academy  of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(9), 997– 1011. doi:10.1097/00004583-200109000-00008 PMID:11556645

Solms, M.(2004). Freudreturns. Scientific American, 83–89. PMID:15127665

Stern, D. (1983). Unformulated experience: From familiar chaos to creative disorder. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 19, 71–99. doi:10.1080/00107530

.1983.10746593

Sternberg, R. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Con- ceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

Stolorow, R., Brandchaft, B., & Atwood, G. (1987). Psychoanalytic treatment: An intersubjective ap- proach. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Wolf, F. (1995). The dreaming universe: A mind- expanding journey into the realm where psyche and physics meet. New York, NY: Touchstone.