The Freud versus Nietzsche showdown.

The psychoanalysis article is good, in terms of defending psychoanalysis and perhaps even its practice, for those who need it.

I can particularly agree that knowledge has a value in and of itself. The idea that knowledge isn't real unless it produces results is exactly what Nietzsche and Bataille, who were very productive writers, have struggled against.  It's the quintessential enemy of the nobility of thought.  After all, if thoughts are only valuable for their utility, we end up only able to recognize the thoughts that make use useful within the system as it currently stands.   Other kinds of thoughts that do not go to making us more useful are cast aside.  Where does this ultimately lead, but to the reorganization of the University along the business model.

As for the content of psychoanalysis, which the article represents as knowing what your conflicts are, I'm not so sure how useful it is to know what one's conflicts happen to be.  It may make one wiser, in a certain sense.   Wisdom is not bad or wrong -- but there is something to be said for not knowing, too.  In terms of the paradigm of psychoanalysis, one may be led to assume that all conflicts produce pathological states.  I say this because psychoanalysis adopts a medical model of sickness versus health.  According to the two writers I've mentioned above, even though it might be conceded that some unconscious conflicts are very useful for generating creativity.

Nietzsche thought that everybody's character has some attributes that are weaker and some that are stronger.  If someone happened to have social authority, they could turn even their weaker attributes into something everybody wants to emulate, so creating a fashion. To intuitively rework the weaker components of one's being into a complete character would be a way of decisively overcoming 'pathology'.  One engages with oneself and one works with oneself, however, not in terms of a model of pathology.  Nonetheless one's health improves through this creative endeavor.

The contrast here seems to be between knowledge and creativity.  They're not entirely separate, but to some degree the sobriety inherent to obtaining knowledge works against the kind of creativity that would simply redirect the streams of one's internal conflicts into more productive and exciting wholes.

Freud and Nietzsche aim for different outcomes and use different methods to achieve these.  I tend to see more value in Nietzsche's view that we should strongly redirect our urges, on the basis of an intuitive reading of one's subconscious.   In fact, this is what I mean by 'shamanic doubling' -- it's the capacity to be one's own physician in service of one's own creativity.

The writer who defends psychoanalysis argues that coming to knowledge about one's unconscious drives gives the client more choices as to how to live their life.  He also points out that conflicts will be ongoing throughout the life of the client.  While that seems reasonable enough, there remains an unspoken question as to whether gaining wisdom through psychoanalysis adds or subtracts from a client's overall state of being.  One assumes that it will add something, but that assumption is based on the idea that knowledge of any sort is always useful.  I think one may also simply assume that one is tasked with plucking out a pathological component of the mind when one aims for psychoanalytic wisdom.  This much has not been proven.

To the contrary: one may need one's conflicts for creative fodder, so long as they are not too overwhelming.   It may also be beneficial, under certain circumstances, that one does not become too aware of what they are -- Otherwise one may almost certainly have to seek out other conflicts and states of stress, in order to get the creative juices flowing again.