My take
Book : The passions of the mind
Author : Irving Stone
When
I bought this book at a premium price for a seconds, I was full of expectations
for an enriching experience. I had already read two more books authored by Irving stone, namely ‘Lust
for life ‘and The Agony and the Ecstasy ‘ and had a mixed experience about the
characters.
Biographies
are end results of an amalgamation of the nature of subject and the authors
efforts at presentation with a worthy analysis. This book unfortunately did not
satisfy either and the onus of
responsibility falls heavily on the author for bringing forth a disappointing story about the life of a persona whom we visualized as a
light-post during our search for knowledge. As for myself, am not interested in
the trivialities of inter-personal relationship and the groveling for
honorariums and awards. It was certainly the unlikable part of the story albeit
it may be true. It was like reading words by its letters and forgetting the
intended meaning or the context. What
was missing most was an independent analytical composition about the person and
the very reason of remembering him today and for ever in the future. I suppose
the book caused greater harm than good to the image of the man glorified in our
textbook and scientific journals. Do I then intend to suggest the there was a
need to censor the contents and reveal only the truth that is likable by the
scientific community or the pro-Freudians of whom I am a representation? On the
contrary, I wish to insist that the purpose of the book is to highlight or
bring forth in an analytical process the strength within the weakness of both
the person under evaluation in the context to the existing society and cultural
behavior of the time. Authors need to develop, in the reader, the right
perspective of the matter in discussion, by inserts and concluding notes along with
the textual facts.
In
most of all humanity, and possibly, generations to come , the history of the
famous and the reputed scientist will be marred by the tryst for professional
and public recognition. Without doubt some are successful in it and the others
are not. Those who are not , most often get their recognition post humus. Among the fears for not being recognized in
the life time and the non-acknowledgement of the science, the prior looms
large. Self recognition is a primitive motive and often over-shadows the
rational thoughts of a person. Fear of being over-thrown by a competing idea which
creates monsters within, burgeons jealousy, putting a halt to assimilative
creativity and results in irresolute censorship of the idea or the person. Both
of which would be unnecessary if one gave a little seat space for the new idea
to fit in and for all one knows, the
added knowledge with fill in a lacuna in a complicated process. If Freud did
believe in his science of psychoanalysis, he should have been able to give some
play of leverage to the possibility of integrating the thoughts of his
colleagues. Certainly he lacked it gravely since he did not loose one but many
friends who, did independently, contribute to the science and are remembered as
masters in the field. Assimilation needs reasoning, that all beauty cannot be
possibly perceived from a single perspective and another thought or view point may
be able to contribute. Such an argument takes a lion’s heart and a fearless
mind.
Sigmund
Freud’s biography was hijacked by many characters during his many stages of his
life. His need for recognition by the university and the opinions of the
eminent neurologists of his time were overbearing. And yet he budges in the
direction of not continuing academic career , a decision which was influenced
by Martha in his life. Through out the story as related by Irving stone, he
continues to be often remarkably affected by the opinions of Martha – may be a
trivial more than what is considered reasonable today. Freud’s personal life
certainly has much to do with his thought process and the ease and rigidity
with which he managed to associate much of the etiology of neurosis to
sexuality. The aspect of his personal
sexual life remains fairly concealed for the biography of a person who
attributed the same in abundance to the scrutiny of every other patient under
evaluation. Of course, it may be claimed, indulging into such details is no
longer necessary, since over the period gone by, we have a far better view
point of personalities like that of Sigmund Freud. The whole biography should have
been reviewed with an epilogue from the perspective of the modern concept of
psychology.
Further
reading about more analytical works by other authors, who were critical of
Freud, both with regard to his personal life and the professional work, reveal
a very murky side of the story marred by lies and deceit. Hence the contents of
the book were certainly censured at multiple stages. It was
indeed evident towards the end chapters that an attempt to prematurely
terminate the discussion was being forced.
