Freud\u2019s investigation into the unconscious sphere of\u00a0the human psyche and its complex processes did not merely provide a\u00a0heuristic tool for the interpretation and understanding of\u00a0psychic manifestations; above all, it\u00a0demythologized anthropocentric narcissism and the philosophical\u2013metaphysical conviction that the self-conscious subject of\u00a0modernity is\u00a0governed by\u00a0self-sufficiency and transparency and, consequently, is\u00a0responsible for and in\u00a0control of\u00a0its thoughts, desires, and actions through autonomous will. The Freudian discovery of\u00a0the unconscious overturns the Cartesian notion of\u00a0subjectivity; it\u00a0questions the Cartesian equation subject = ego = consciousness. This \u201cCopernican\u201d displacement of\u00a0the center of\u00a0consciousness from the subjective ego to\u00a0the unconscious structure of\u00a0the psyche intimates the abyssal darkness of\u00a0Being and the chaotic texture of\u00a0the Cosmos, which cannot be\u00a0incorporated into symbolic discourse, even though it\u00a0traverses it\u00a0and perpetually escapes it.<\/p>\n
Thus, it\u00a0problematizes\u2014without transcending them\u2014fetish concepts such as\u00a0truth, reality, authenticity, propriety, appropriation, and belonging, and demonstrates that there exists no\u00a0foundational knowledge nor any ultimate certainty, since all symbolic-cognitive systems, including science itself\u2014of which Freud remained a\u00a0restrained yet stubborn defender\u2014constitute rationalizations in\u00a0relation to\u00a0the real, abstractions in\u00a0relation to\u00a0the concrete, generalizations in\u00a0relation to\u00a0the singular. Rationalized elements become idealized and are transformed into ideas, ideals, and principles referring to\u00a0a\u00a0metaphysical beyond, a\u00a0transcendence of\u00a0meaning. Freud reveals that symbolic institutions are idealizations\u2014though he\u00a0overlooks their deeper significance\u2014and that imaginary identities and identifications are radical illusions.<\/p>\n
Although he\u00a0struggled to\u00a0illuminate and exorcise the ancient shadows of\u00a0irrationalism and belief in\u00a0the supernatural, the undertaking fulfilled itself precisely through its failure. We\u00a0say this because psychoanalysis\u2014and this is\u00a0due to\u00a0Freud himself and not merely the Freudians\u2014constitutes an\u00a0\u201canti-theological\u201d theology, an\u00a0\u201canti-religious\u201d meta-religion, whose metaphysical core possesses all the structural characteristics of\u00a0both classical mythology and modern mythology, namely technology. Freud himself, to\u00a0some extent, recognized this.<\/p>\n
Freud\u2019s entire project moves between what he\u00a0himself calls instinctual mythology and the hope for a\u00a0future pharmacodynamic and technical intervention. \u201cThe theory of\u00a0instincts is, so\u00a0to\u00a0speak, our mythology, \u201d he\u00a0writes in\u00a0New Introductory Lectures on\u00a0Psychoanalysis<\/em>. \u201cThe future may teach us, let us\u00a0hope, to\u00a0act directly, through certain chemical substances, upon the quantities of\u00a0energy and their distribution within the psychic apparatus, \u201d he\u00a0says in\u00a0An\u00a0Outline of\u00a0Psychoanalysis<\/em>.<\/p>\n At\u00a0this point, it\u00a0is\u00a0necessary to\u00a0clarify the structural characteristics of\u00a0mythology. The first is\u00a0universality: a\u00a0mythology constitutes a\u00a0complete image of\u00a0\u201chumanity within the world.\u201d Every mythology also possesses an\u00a0origin\u2014a decisive moment of\u00a0revelation or\u00a0diagnostic insight from which the entire system derives\u2014and certain developmental stages linked through the logic of\u00a0causality. Another element indicative of\u00a0the mythological universe is\u00a0the development of\u00a0a\u00a0particular language, emblematic images, metaphors, and dramatic scenarios. This language generates its own system of\u00a0myths; it\u00a0depicts the world through a\u00a0series of\u00a0foundational rituals, gestures, and symbols.<\/p>\n The great mythologies constructed in\u00a0the West during the nineteenth century were not merely attempts to\u00a0fill the void left by\u00a0the erosion of\u00a0organized religion and systematic theology under the pressure of\u00a0techno-scientific rationality\u2014above all, the decline of\u00a0Christian theology and dogma. They themselves became a\u00a0kind of\u00a0substitute theology, organized according to\u00a0rules, as\u00a0symbolic images of\u00a0the meaning of\u00a0humanity and \u201creality.\u201d These were systems of\u00a0belief and argumentation marked by\u00a0intense anti-religiosity. They posited as\u00a0metaphysical principle a\u00a0world without a\u00a0metaphysical principle (God), and denied life after death. Yet their structure, ambitions, and demands upon believers remained profoundly metaphysical and religious, both strategically and in\u00a0terms of\u00a0their effects.<\/p>\n Freudian psychology, despite its metaphysical and metaphorical dimensions and its quasi-religious aspect, represents an\u00a0exaltation of\u00a0the organizing power of\u00a0rational thought, which decisively contributed to\u00a0the unveiling and exploration of\u00a0the non-rational dimension of\u00a0existence. Above all, it\u00a0continued the process of\u00a0dismantling anthropocentric narcissism, the egocentrism of\u00a0the modern individual, the individualism and autism of\u00a0the contemporary subject. Of\u00a0course, Copernicus, Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, Einstein, and others had preceded\u00a0him. Freud continues the long therapeutic process against anthropocentric arrogance and hubris\u2014a process that must continue and expand in\u00a0the Space Age through the recognition that humanity participates in, belongs to, and communicates with the biosphere and the Universe as\u00a0a\u00a0whole, which exists not for colonization and conquest but for dwelling and hospitality.<\/p>\n The question that arises is\u00a0this: Did Freudian mythology\u2014and the other mythologies of\u00a0the nineteenth and twentieth centuries\u2014succeed in\u00a0filling the existential void created by\u00a0the disintegration of\u00a0religion? Was the longing of\u00a0soul and spirit for Truth satisfied? Was the nostalgia and thirst for the Absolute and the transcendent weakened? Did the impulse toward mystery subside?<\/p>\n The belief held by\u00a0the intellectuals of\u00a0humanistic nihilistic Enlightenment\u2014that the rise of\u00a0the sciences (mathematics, physics, social sciences, applied sciences) would satisfy humanity\u2019s need for order, beauty, and moral integrity in\u00a0a\u00a0way surpassing revealed religion, thereby filling the vacuum created by\u00a0religion\u2019s collapse\u2014a collapse for which science itself is\u00a0causally and logically co-responsible\u2014was not confirmed. The dominance of\u00a0techno-scientific rationalism and abstract conceptual schemas, producing a\u00a0truth that is\u00a0abstract, neutral, and impersonal, despite its productive contributions and despite the catastrophes it\u00a0caused, fulfilled only partially the expectations it\u00a0had cultivated.<\/p>\n The sense of\u00a0failure prevailing in\u00a0a\u00a0West that is\u00a0planetary in\u00a0scope yet declining, the anxiety, dissatisfaction, unease, and fear dominating the soul and spirit of\u00a0humanity, the subtle feeling that nothing is\u00a0truly under control, strengthen the irrational and absurd element of\u00a0existence. This irrationality overcompensates for the loss of\u00a0meaning through nostalgia for the Absolute, the transcendent, Truth, Innocence, and Harmony, reviving beliefs, myths, and dogmas of\u00a0the past.<\/p>\n At\u00a0this point, several ontological observations of\u00a0major historical and meta-historical significance become necessary. After twenty-five centuries of\u00a0metaphysical thought, during which the Being of\u00a0beings was considered the transcendent source of\u00a0Meaning, Truth, Cause, and Purpose, there emerged the ontological nihilism of\u00a0humanistic anthropology in\u00a0various forms, denying the metaphysical foundation of\u00a0Being and beings. Ontological nihilism denied the objectivity of\u00a0Meaning, Truth, Cause, and Purpose and argued instead for the subjective perspective in\u00a0shaping the world of\u00a0experience.<\/p>\n If\u00a0in\u00a0earlier epochs Nature or\u00a0God was the Cause, the Logos, the Truth, the Meaning generating causes, reasons, truths, and meanings for beings and phenomena, in\u00a0the age of\u00a0Subjectivity and Humanistic Humanism, human conscious rationality itself assigns causes, truths, meanings, and reasons. The \u201canti-metaphysical\u201d metaphysics of\u00a0Subjectivity and the humanistic spirit merely reversed the signs of\u00a0classical Greek and Christian metaphysics. Yet it\u00a0preserved its idealistic character insofar as\u00a0it\u00a0granted primacy to\u00a0the Idea of\u00a0Man and Human Reason over the Idea of\u00a0Nature and the divine character of\u00a0Logos (Greek tradition), and over the Idea of\u00a0God and the divine nature of\u00a0Logos (Christian tradition).<\/p>\n Thus, transformed, it\u00a0continued the metaphysical tradition distinguishing the empirical from the transcendental (metaphysical or\u00a0ontological). Yet this distinction leaves the World itself unthought\u2014the unified, double, and multiple relation between World and Human Being. When we\u00a0speak of\u00a0World, we\u00a0do\u00a0not refer to\u00a0the anthropocentric empirical world that separates World from Human and studies \u201csubjects\u201d opposed to\u00a0\u201cobjects\u201d connected through causal relations. We\u00a0refer instead to\u00a0the World as\u00a0the articulated and moving Whole, which does not act as\u00a0a\u00a0cause\u2014real, metaphysical, or\u00a0metaphorical\u2014but as\u00a0a\u00a0moving togetherness, present-absent, unified and differentiated simultaneously, undergoing multiple metamorphoses without our being able to\u00a0say which dimension precedes and which follows.<\/p>\n The metaphysical\u2013philosophical spacetime that grants meaning to\u00a0the Freudian experience is\u00a0the dominant Subjectivity (objective in\u00a0character) of\u00a0modernity, together with its vital myths\u2014chief among them the myth of\u00a0the omnipotence of\u00a0Reason, techno-scientific rationality, and positivity. Although Freud works with a\u00a0spirit of\u00a0radical deconstruction and subversion of\u00a0metaphysical dualism and hints toward another perspective, he\u00a0ultimately does little more than invert the terms of\u00a0metaphysics and remains subordinate to\u00a0idealist philosophy, making Matter the transcendental signifier while remaining captive to\u00a0the naturalistic epistemological paradigm and its materialist expression.<\/p>\n Yet one must remember that the epistemological \u201cparadigm\u201d of\u00a0his era was founded upon Cartesian metaphysics, which divides the world into res extensa<\/em> and res cogitans<\/em>, while the cosmological \u201cparadigm\u201d rested upon Newtonian physics and the deterministic conception of\u00a0time.<\/p>\n Despite Freud\u2019s questioning of\u00a0the foundational concepts and terms of\u00a0Western metaphysics, his anthropology remains anthropocentric. He\u00a0continues to\u00a0employ schemas of\u00a0interpretive understanding and causal explanation. Not only does he\u00a0fail to\u00a0free himself from these distinctions and think what is\u00a0given for thought and construction, but he\u00a0remains attached\u2014despite his critiques\u2014to the concepts of\u00a0truth and reality and does not dare displace them toward the horizon, toward networks rather than causes, toward the wandering world.<\/p>\n This world unfolds and folds back upon itself, remaining without beginning or\u00a0end through ceaseless metamorphosis. The groundless World, through which causes and bonds, parts and complexes, and even the famous metaphysical Whole appear, constitutes the unity of\u00a0fullness and emptiness, of\u00a0Everything and Nothing. This non-tautological Unity opens and traverses a\u00a0non-topological place, which remains gaping because it\u00a0has been deserted by\u00a0that which withdraws: time, the non-chronological.<\/p>\n Freudian thought, therefore, is\u00a0structured within the framework of\u00a0the \u201carchetypal totems\u201d of\u00a0classical philosophical and cosmological thought: binary oppositions and the principle of\u00a0causality, which have historically determined systems of\u00a0social representation.<\/p>\n Although Freud dethrones the modern worldview of\u00a0consciousness, the ego cogito<\/em>, and replaces it\u00a0with the unconscious (the Id), even this unconscious\u2014this primordial imaginary horizon\u2014is rationally investigated and grasped by\u00a0the knowing Subject and its representational capacity. Freud overlooks the mythological horizon of\u00a0psychoanalysis, its metaphysical core, insofar as\u00a0he\u00a0distinguishes Human from World, and reality from representation, without suspecting the co-belonging of\u00a0human and world: the unified and double manifestation of\u00a0the unique Invisible-One-Multiple unfolding in\u00a0spacetime.<\/p>\n World and Human mutually belong to\u00a0one another and are always situated at\u00a0the center of\u00a0the whole relation, inseparable from time, which inhabits the center of\u00a0this relation and the movement of\u00a0its metamorphoses.<\/p>\n The questions that arise are these: Is\u00a0not the unconscious, as\u00a0a\u00a0logical construction, interpreted by\u00a0the conscious subject? Is\u00a0not this interpretation itself an\u00a0interpretation consciousness formulates about the unconscious? Is\u00a0not the unconscious included within the interpretation consciousness produces? Does the unconscious not possess its own consciousness? Does not the very possibility of\u00a0interpreting it\u00a0demonstrate this?<\/p>\n The answers traditionally given to\u00a0the relation between consciousness and unconsciousness are dualistic: one is\u00a0placed in\u00a0the field of\u00a0spiritual forces, the other in\u00a0the field of\u00a0material forces. A\u00a0more radical approach sees neither antagonism nor complementarity between these forces, nor synthesizes them into an\u00a0undifferentiated unity. What appears under the form of\u00a0duality is\u00a0governed by\u00a0a\u00a0unified and multiplying rhythm: the two manifestations are neither identical nor separate, but act together as\u00a0one.<\/p>\n If\u00a0we\u00a0move beyond the logical principles\u2014the principle of\u00a0identity, contradiction, excluded middle, and sufficient reason\u2014then we\u00a0will understand that what is, is\u00a0not identical with itself; it\u00a0is\u00a0contradictory, excludes no\u00a0middle, and possesses no\u00a0sufficient ground.<\/p>\n We\u00a0will understand that psychoanalytic work, and all scientific work, do\u00a0not aim at\u00a0that from which all things arise and in\u00a0which they participate. Rather, they concern themselves with the secondary production of\u00a0the world into \u201csubject\u201d and \u201cobject, \u201d the result of\u00a0the intentional act of\u00a0the conscious subject and its creative capacities. They do\u00a0not ask: What is\u00a0the impulse behind all this? What is\u00a0the origin of\u00a0\u201csubject\u201d and \u201cobject\u201d? From what horizon did this division and these determinations emerge? What causes them to\u00a0appear, disappear, and reappear according to\u00a0the rhythm of\u00a0metamorphoses?<\/p>\n Are the \u201claws of\u00a0nature, \u201d the \u201cprinciples, \u201d and the \u201crules\u201d governing subject, object, and their relations immutable and eternally static? Are they not themselves subject to\u00a0time? That is, do\u00a0they not transform according to\u00a0the interpretive dynamic unfolding through time and with time?<\/p>\n What is\u00a0it\u00a0that admits unlimited interpretive determinations without being exhausted by\u00a0them? What causes interpretations to\u00a0differ and change? Does not the very phenomenology of\u00a0interpretation reveal the Openness of\u00a0the World\u2014that is, its metamorphoses?<\/p>\n Openness constitutes human anxiety. So\u00a0long as\u00a0the cognitive enterprise remains intramundane\u2014that is, captive to\u00a0truth, totality, reality, and the real\u2014it will leave the World unthought and humanity confined to\u00a0its phenomenological\/individual existence.<\/p>\n We\u00a0may take up\u00a0the binary opposition between consciousness and unconsciousness and inscribe it\u00a0within spherical spacetime and its metamorphoses. Going beyond the distinction by\u00a0traversing it, we\u00a0must think the enigmatic center from which later differentiations and oppositions emerge. This center\u2014the articulated and moving Whole\u2014does not act as\u00a0a\u00a0cause, real, metaphysical, or\u00a0metaphorical. Rather, this center, present-absent, one and differentiated at\u00a0once, undergoes multiple metamorphoses without our being able to\u00a0say which dimension precedes and which follows.<\/p>\n Consciousness and unconsciousness are merely identical and opposed aspects of\u00a0this fragmentary-total Design\u2014a primordial Design without model or\u00a0prototype. A\u00a0Design in\u00a0which chance is\u00a0the instrument of\u00a0necessity, though necessity itself is\u00a0never irrevocable, never wholly arrives, never fully actualizes itself. The event of\u00a0the world is\u00a0indeterminately differentiated. For Nothingness is\u00a0perpetually at\u00a0work, nihilating. What appeared, was created, or\u00a0produced has already been erased. Nothingness is\u00a0at\u00a0once the insignificant nothing annihilating everything and the other face of\u00a0the Whole. Whole and nothing unite, differentiated.<\/p>\n Consciousness as\u00a0interpretation, and interpretation as\u00a0consciousness, are governed by\u00a0the principle of\u00a0causality, which constitutes an\u00a0interpretation of\u00a0the topology of\u00a0the visible world of\u00a0phenomenal consciousness\u2014a stable representation of\u00a0the finite texture of\u00a0the material World theoretically idealized.<\/p>\n The unconscious, as\u00a0non-conscious, does not admit total clarification. It\u00a0escapes complete integration into symbolic order. It\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0play of\u00a0light and shadow, a\u00a0non-topological place governed by\u00a0a\u00a0non-chronological time. The unconscious constitutes a\u00a0transversal rupture where the horizontal deterministic and causal interpretation of\u00a0the conscious subject collapses, together with its certainty of\u00a0prediction. From the primordial non-chaotic chaos emerge conceptual \u201centities\u201d and unpredictable bifurcations, structures of\u00a0dispersion and dissemination, nonlinear forms exploring new modes of\u00a0organization within spacetime.<\/p>\n The points of\u00a0bifurcation compose a\u00a0map of\u00a0the irreversibility of\u00a0time. The dynamics of\u00a0bifurcation reveal that time is\u00a0irreversible, though it\u00a0may fold and unfold indeterminately. They also reveal that the movement of\u00a0time is\u00a0immeasurable. Although causal connections function at\u00a0every moment, bifurcations occur unpredictably. This suggests that the unconscious constitutes a\u00a0mixture of\u00a0necessity and chance. This mixture composes the history of\u00a0Being inscribed within the time of\u00a0cosmohistorical becoming, which does not coincide with Time itself\u2014Pan-temporality.<\/p>\n From this perspective, precisely because the unconscious is\u00a0irreducible to\u00a0symbolic order, though it\u00a0leaves traces and imprints within it, there can be\u00a0no\u00a0final synthesis in\u00a0the dialectic of\u00a0oppositions, contrary to\u00a0what is\u00a0represented by\u00a0the Hegelian notion of\u00a0absolute knowledge. Trembling spacetime\u2014as manifested in\u00a0symbolic structure, where any stable relation between signifier and signified is\u00a0absent\u2014overturns the illusions of\u00a0permanence and stability of\u00a0the Ego and reveals anxiety, lack, and deprivation as\u00a0constitutive dimensions of\u00a0human formation, dimensions that function as\u00a0psychic forces of\u00a0transcendence and becoming.<\/p>\n Going beyond the analytical distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness\u2014which are logical constructions\u2014we may say that the visible world of\u00a0rational\/non-rational consciousness and its interpretation, together with the invisible world of\u00a0the non-rational rationality of\u00a0the unconscious, fundamentally ineffable, constitute that which constitutes them: the Sphere. The Sphere is\u00a0the minimal point of\u00a0\u201cencounter\u201d and \u201cdialogue\u201d between Logos and the Ineffable, Voice and Silence, Reality and the Imaginary\u2014a non-topological place, homogeneous and a\u00a0field of\u00a0equilibrium, symmetrical, governed by\u00a0the temporal timelessness indeterminately differentiated: another face of\u00a0Nothingness.<\/p>\n Freud, in\u00a0the interpretation of\u00a0dreams, perceptively intimates that dream interpretation can only reach a\u00a0certain point, thereby revealing the radically finite character of\u00a0the interpretive enterprise. The dream springs from the chaos of\u00a0the unconscious\u2014or perhaps from the chaos of\u00a0the World itself. But what relation exists between them? And what chaos are we\u00a0speaking\u00a0of? The chaos of\u00a0mythology, poetry, philosophy, or\u00a0that which science studies and technology attempts to\u00a0manage through classifications\u2014classifications of\u00a0a\u00a0structure already chaotic or\u00a0already ordered?<\/p>\n Are we\u00a0referring to\u00a0the lightning flash of\u00a0the abyss\u2014that is, the World itself\u2014or to\u00a0the chaos that surrounds and traverses\u00a0us? We\u00a0may say that all these questions possess a\u00a0common yet suspended and invisible center, differing only in\u00a0the directions toward which they orient themselves.<\/p>\n If\u00a0chaos is\u00a0the primordial chasm from which all things emerged, and if\u00a0we\u00a0inhabit the chaos within us, then we\u00a0speak of\u00a0chaos while already regulated by\u00a0a\u00a0world that itself is\u00a0regulated. The world is\u00a0inevitably interpreted\u2014that is, transformed\u2014without there ever existing an\u00a0authentic and immutable state or\u00a0becoming. Interpretation transforms and questions; it\u00a0becomes itself the question of\u00a0that which is\u00a0not, yet unfolds as\u00a0time.<\/p>\n All interpretations are temporary shelters destined to\u00a0become ruins, while another interpretation awaits its own time to\u00a0become the place and moment of\u00a0the world, only to\u00a0be\u00a0led in\u00a0turn toward destruction. Everything that is\u00a0and becomes\u2014without distinction between Being and becoming\u2014is never complete or\u00a0whole. Within lack and deprivation, all things inscribe a\u00a0mark upon the primordial spiral of\u00a0the world that repeats itself through differentiation.<\/p>\n The dream\u2014the manifestation of\u00a0the radically uncanny, of\u00a0that which cannot be\u00a0thematized\u2014the subjectless Openness where there exists no\u00a0ego, causality, locality, linear time, or\u00a0binary opposition: within the dream, everything communicates instantaneously within a\u00a0non-topological place and a\u00a0non-chronological time.<\/p>\n This reveals that from an\u00a0archaic abyss, from the abyss of\u00a0nothingness, emerges the non-chaotic chaos of\u00a0cosmic poeticity: the unexpected, inconceivable, and unlimited horizons of\u00a0the soul, its miracles and its wounds, to\u00a0which they return, transforming it\u00a0and being transformed by\u00a0it.<\/p>\n Within the dream converse the Id\u00a0as\u00a0the radical imaginary of\u00a0existence and the cosmic Id\u00a0as\u00a0the radical indeterminacy from which the radical imaginary emerges\u2014an imaginary that renews the radical indeterminacy of\u00a0the cosmic Id.<\/p>\n This\u2014the Sphere\u2014constitutes a\u00a0predicate that cannot be\u00a0categorized by\u00a0its \u201cself\u201d and therefore does not form a\u00a0definable set or\u00a0totality. On\u00a0the contrary, it\u00a0\u201cis\u201d the Set of\u00a0all sets, open to\u00a0the primordial spiral of\u00a0Time and to\u00a0its unlimited metamorphoses.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Freud\u2019s investigation into the unconscious sphere of\u00a0the human psyche and its complex processes did not merely provide a\u00a0heuristic tool for the interpretation and understanding of\u00a0psychic manifestations; above all, it\u00a0demythologized anthropocentric narcissism and the philosophical\u2013metaphysical conviction that the self-conscious subject of\u00a0modernity is\u00a0governed by\u00a0self-sufficiency and transparency and, consequently, is\u00a0responsible for and in\u00a0control of\u00a0its thoughts, desires, and actions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2087,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2109"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2109\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2110,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2109\/revisions\/2110"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2087"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Metaphysics of\u00a0Psychoanalysis<\/h1>\n
Dream<\/h1>\n