{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021207177814029365, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.044334975369458, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Suppose Freud had chosen Orestes instead.

The paper argues that the story of Oedipus, however understood, conveys psychic truth of no greater or more central importance to human development than do the stories of many other myths. A distinction is made between sophisticated theories developed out of Freud's original concept of the Oedipus complex, and the adherence by some clinicians to his original sexual theory. The meaning of Sophocles' play Oedipus the King is found to lie in the clash between Oedipus' omnipotent narcissism (hubris) and the power of the unconscious psyche, rather than in cross-generational sex. Emphasis is placed on the clinical usefulness of understanding all myths symbolically. The Oresteia by Aeschylus is offered as a story about pre-Oedipal (in the Freudian sense) psychic states. This trilogy shows symbolically the developing of an ego, the establishment of moral judgement and the integration of our shadow (the Furies). It also shows the parallel development of structures of law in society to replace instinctive blood feuds. It is suggested that had Freud chosen Orestes instead of Oedipus, the course of both psychoanalysis and of Western society would have had a different emphasis.