In short: Today we make do with the meager few notions with which the psychology of the Freudian school operates—you know, “superego” and “ego” and “id” plus “libido” and “death instinct” and so on—but we cannot manage solely with them, in many cases they simply “just don’t cut it,” as you would probably phrase it, unscientifically but accurately, the concept of “physis,” for instance—in the Heideggerian sense, yes? Not of phyein, or “let grow,” but rather of phaeinein: “to bring to light”—that is: Physis as the “shiningly open,” as the inherent human drive to develop upward (i.e., our innate striving for sublimity, truth, goodness, nobility, beauty, you know) has always been shrouded in mystical twilight, there is some sort of superhuman, if not supernatural, force obtaining here, hence the superego should not be regarded purely as a product of the milieu, it is not merely the cane of the father and similar authority figures that creates and stamps the ethical elements in our souls, no, no, by no means: quite undeniably, there is something else beyond them, a—I shall come out with it plainly—a spirit poured into us (well, it’s Whitsuntide, I ween, when Nature gets so very green), why shouldn’t the id, which gains such a destructive upper hand in cases of a malfunctioning or nonfunctioning ego, which deals with the reality principle, and of the superordinate and controlling superego—why should id consist of more or less repressed drives and not quite objectively—materially!—also contain something that opposes that very physis, that urge for upward development, for both ethical and aesthetic perfection? Yes indeed, why not truly? If one assumes the one as existing and thus as the acknowledged good, then in and of itself it already presumes its correlative opposite, does it not? However: we are speaking about medical phenomena here, so if I use words like “good” or “evil,” then I am applying these concepts much as, say, an electrician employs the terms “positive” and “negative”—I mean, not as value judgments but merely as termini technici of a polarity that exists purely and simply, so do not believe, ladies and gentlemen, that we men of science would ever give up our fundamental impartiality, oh no, absolutely not, to a certain degree we even feel compelled to integrate the concept of disease into a universally framed process of life, after all, disturbance, destruction, death, demolition are part of the overall bios, one must take into account the constant renewal of Creation, it is, alas, not thinkable without the steady decay of life—however, as far as the above-mentioned neuroses and psychoses are concerned, we can (although the former, the neuroses, have already been recognized as defense mechanisms, febrile conditions of the soul, as it were, issuing in fact from a recovery tendency)—we can thus establish a good number of illnesses that are traceable to conflicts of faith or to an unsatisfied need for faith. All manner of traumatic leftovers, residues of old religious conceptions in the superego, which are now being thwarted by an attempted adjustment to a godless reality, are almost more destructive than a need for religious attachment; like everything else in God’s world (inconceivable without the correlative of the devil), faith too has two sides: a positive, health-preserving, healing side, and, under certain circumstances, a negative, health-imperiling, destructive side as well—if, for simplicity’s sake, we do not just say a salvational side and a side twisting into the demonic . . .