Changes

[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Hr_haynes_monophobia.jpg|right|frame]]

[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Hr_haynes_monophobia.jpg|right|frame]]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century 17th Century]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century 17th Century]

==Definition==

==Definition==

*An [[intuitive]] [[response]] [[thought]] to be [[instinctive]] in [[animals]], which prompts whichever [[behaviour]] promises the best [[chance]] of [[survival]].

*An [[intuitive]] [[response]] [[thought]] to be [[instinctive]] in [[animals]], which prompts whichever [[behaviour]] promises the best [[chance]] of [[survival]].

In this passage we notice that in [[accordance]] with the approach opened up in the "Project," he considers "self-preservative [[instincts]]" and "[[ego]] instincts" as being [[equivalent]] terms and that they are indeed [[instincts]]. However, "As the [[poet]] has said, all the organic instincts [. . .] may be [[classified]] as '[[hunger]]' or '[[love]]' " (1910i, p. 214-215). This brings up the question as to what is a purely organic need (Berdürfnis), what is instinctive [[behavior]] (Instinkt, in the sense of [[preformed]] and [[automatically]] [[executed]] [[behavior]]), and what is drive (Trieb, in the sense of a "borderline-[[concept]]" between the organic and the psychic). [[Freud]] was to be much more explicit on this question in relation to psychosexuality than in [[relation]] to self-preservation, which was relegated somewhat to the rear of his [[theoretical]] preoccupations. This [[opposition]]-[[complementarity]] nevertheless plays an important role in the [[theory]] that the [[sexual]] [[instincts]] are connected to the self-preservation instincts, based on the first case of sucking (1905d), and in the [[opposition]] between the [[pleasure]] principle and the [[reality]] principle: the ego instincts force the way to the [[reality]] principle, whereas the sexual instincts remain much more durably in the service of the [[pleasure]] principle (1911b).

In this passage we notice that in [[accordance]] with the approach opened up in the "Project," he considers "self-preservative [[instincts]]" and "[[ego]] instincts" as being [[equivalent]] terms and that they are indeed [[instincts]]. However, "As the [[poet]] has said, all the organic instincts [. . .] may be [[classified]] as '[[hunger]]' or '[[love]]' " (1910i, p. 214-215). This brings up the question as to what is a purely organic need (Berdürfnis), what is instinctive [[behavior]] (Instinkt, in the sense of [[preformed]] and [[automatically]] [[executed]] [[behavior]]), and what is drive (Trieb, in the sense of a "borderline-[[concept]]" between the organic and the psychic). [[Freud]] was to be much more explicit on this question in relation to psychosexuality than in [[relation]] to self-preservation, which was relegated somewhat to the rear of his [[theoretical]] preoccupations. This [[opposition]]-[[complementarity]] nevertheless plays an important role in the [[theory]] that the [[sexual]] [[instincts]] are connected to the self-preservation instincts, based on the first case of sucking (1905d), and in the [[opposition]] between the [[pleasure]] principle and the [[reality]] principle: the ego instincts force the way to the [[reality]] principle, whereas the sexual instincts remain much more durably in the service of the [[pleasure]] principle (1911b).

With the arrival of the structural theory and the second theory of [[instincts]] opposing life instincts and [[death]] instincts, the question takes on new [[dimensions]]. All [[instincts]] are now seen as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido libidinal] whereas the [[ego]]—at the expense of its largely [[unconscious]] [[function]]—more clearly takes charge of all [[adaptive]] functions (in the service of one of its "masters," the [[reality]] of the external world, though [[simultaneously]] tyrannized by the other two, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego id and the superego]). The result is that, in the structural theory with the notion of [[conflict]] among the agencies, the [[status]] of the notion of "self-preservation" becomes [[relatively]] uncertain and the [[expression]] "ego instincts" tends to disappear from Freudian vocabulary.

With the arrival of the structural theory and the second theory of [[instincts]] opposing life instincts and [[death]] instincts, the question takes on new [[dimensions]]. All [[instincts]] are now seen as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido libidinal] whereas the [[ego]]—at the expense of its largely [[unconscious]] [[function]]—more clearly takes charge of all [[adaptive]] functions (in the service of one of its "masters," the [[reality]] of the external world, though [[simultaneously]] tyrannized by the other two, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego id and the superego]). The result is that, in the structural theory with the notion of [[conflict]] among the agencies, the [[status]] of the notion of "self-preservation" becomes [[relatively]] uncertain and the [[expression]] "ego instincts" tends to disappear from Freudian vocabulary.

However, several post-Freudian trends have again highlighted the [[value]] of the notions of self-preservation [[instincts]] and [[ego]] instincts, particularly the Paris psychosomatic school.[http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CCX3435301336&v=2.1&u=tel_a_uots&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w]

However, several post-Freudian trends have again highlighted the [[value]] of the notions of self-preservation [[instincts]] and [[ego]] instincts, particularly the Paris psychosomatic school.[https://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CCX3435301336&v=2.1&u=tel_a_uots&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w]

[[Category: Biology]]

[[Category: Biology]]

[[Category: Psychology]]

[[Category: Psychology]]