The Flaws of Sigmund Freud

[Ryan Rudolph]

Here are some selected excerpts taken from Ernest Becker’s “The Denial of Death”

Jung speaking of Freud:

“I can still recall vividly how Freud said to me “My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.”

He said that to me with great emotion, in the tone of a father saying, “And promise me this one thing, my dear son: that you will go to church every Sunday.” In some astonishment I asked him, “A bulwark—against what?” To which he replied, “Against the black tide of mud” –and he hesitated for a moment, then added – “of occultism.” … What Freud seems to mean by “occultism” was virtually everything that philosophy and religion, including the rising contemporary science of parapsychology had learned about the psyche.

And about the earlier 1907 meeting, Jung reveals:

Above all, Freud’s attitude toward the spirit seemed to me highly questionable. Whenever, in a person or in a work of art, an expression of spirituality (in the intellectual, not the supernatural sense) came to light, he suspected it, and insinuated that it was repressed sexuality. Anything that could not be directly interpreted as sexuality he referred to as “psychosexuality.” I protested that this hypothesis, carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to an annihilating judgment upon culture. Culture would then appear as a mere farce, the morbid consequence of repressed sexuality. “Yes.” He assented. “so it is, and that is just a curse of fate against which we are powerless to contend.”… There was no mistaking the fact that Freud was emotionally involved in his sexual theory to an extraordinary degree. When he spoke of it, his tone became urgent, almost anxious…. A strange, deeply moved expression came over his face…”

Ernest Becker:

“A base cause for his own lifelong twisting was that he would never cleanly leave the sexual dogma, never clearly see or admit that the terror of death was the basic repression”

“The fiction of death as an ‘instinct’ allowed Freud to keep the terror of death outside his formulations as the primary human problem of ego mastery”

“As Rank says: Freud disposed of the ‘death problem’ and made it into a ‘death instinct’….”even when he finally stumbled upon the inescapable death problem, he sought to give a new meaning to that also in harmony with the wish, since he spoke of death instinct instead of death fear, the fear itself he had meantime disposed of elsewhere, where it was not so threatening”

It appears Sigmund Freud had a strong emotional attachment to his sexual theory, he cleaved to it quite strongly, and ultimately this attachment prevented him from finding the absolute truth because he dismissed deeper truths that could possibly undermine his own ideas.

The yearning for the self-preservation of his sexual theories seems closely related to the nagging fear of his own mortality, which he wasn’t able to resolve.

If you care to add to this psychoanalysis of Freud, be my guest.

[Leyla Shen]

Freud’s sexual dogma has its roots in the realm of the Id: home of the pre-lingual and primitive pleasure/passion/self-preservation drives.

In Freud, the death drive (also an instinct housed in the Id) is a bodily instinct to return to the state of tranquillity preceding birth. Freud was, above all, a scientist. He posits that it is for this reason that people repeat traumatic events--run through them over and over--as if to eliminate them and bring about the highly prized quiescence that is the goal of this drive.

This is the entire activity of Id. Enter the unconscious.

“Terror of death” is the ego’s ideational presentation--a manifestation, according to Freud’s work--of the Id altered by the challenges and obstacles to passion/self-preservation in the real (objective, in this context) world and the Superego (guilt).

Freud sought the resolution of the unconscious. A realm, in his hierarchy, once removed from instinct (Id). Instinct, being entirely “pre”-lingual (in every sense of the prefix “pre”), can only ever be accessed (brought to consciousness) by language. However, this can only be done through the unconscious--the realm of ideational presentations: enter dreams, Freudian slips, neuroses--the symbolic.

Freud’s unconscious is thus the intelligible manifestation of instinct and “terror of death” the verbalisation of a symbolic manifestation of instinct through the unconscious. One cannot, therefore, repress an instinct; one can only repress a representation of it.

If this--the terror of death--is the primary object of ego mastery, I think Freud did very well, indeed. No?

On what basis, exactly, has this Becker bloke arrived at the conclusion that Freud has repressed this basic repression (??!) -- the terror of death -- rather than mastered it, egoistically?

[Edit: rearranged some paragraphs for clarity.]

[R. Steven Coyle]

On what basis, exactly, has this Becker bloke arrived at the conclusion that Freud has repressed this basic repression (??!) -- the terror of death -- rather than mastered it, egoistically?

I'd like to venture a guess. Freud's Id, after discovering the "terror of death" principle, began to unknowingly, and unbenevolently support his Superego. His conception of the "death principle" as the one salvation of humanity, wrecked havoc upon his transconfigured Superego -- producing a deep chasm, and forcing the need for repression.

The ego that produced the principle, lead Freud to deny his attachment to the immortality of the idea. Ironically, subjugating him to the very thing he set out to abolish.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Leyla:

The problem with Freud is that he made all sorts of divisions where he didn’t need to. The ID, ego and superego and not necessary in my opinion.

One is either deluded because they think they exist, frightened of an ending of what they know and attached to self-gratification or they’re not.

It is very simple. These categories are redundant and only cause trouble.

Sigmund Freud was a complicated man. He was quick to blame humanity’s disorder on sexual repression when in fact most of man’s neurosis is due to a fear of not being occupied. We fear stillness, we need constant stimulation and that is the source of our misery.

Very simple.

Collagues such as Jung had an incredible time trying to cooperate with the man. He was overly emotional, competitive, he wanted to be the leader, he was quick to attack others, and extremely defensive with his own ideas.

He even went through fainting periods when Jung would go too deeply into certain issues, quite feminine, no?

He may have observed all sorts of neurotic tendencies in others as a means to create a psychological body of work, but he wasn’t able to apply the knowledge he discovered directly to his own psyche.

He had an incredible intellect, and he sure brought many ideas to the table, but as man it seems he just couldn’t go all the way…

Joke:

UG Krishnamurti would become quite indignant when Freud parrots would come to him and ask stupid questions such as: ”How do I allow my superego to stop feeling guilt?

To an enlightened man, this is the most absurd question one could ever ask. Or someone might come to him after listening to a K talk and ask “how do I uncondition my conditioned mind?

This is why UG was notorious for indignantly renouncing everyone because they would ask him dumb questions based on knowledge they gathered, but they made absolutely no sense because they didn’t even understand what they were asking.

UG went on to say that when there is clarity, there are no more questions to ask. However people are generally afraid of a death of the questioner because the questioner is “you”.

[Leyla Shen]

Ryan wrote:

He had an incredible intellect, and he sure brought many ideas to the table, but as man it seems he just couldn’t go all the way…

It is very simple. These categories are redundant and only cause trouble.

An incredible intellect for redundant ideas that cause trouble? Eh, so much for genius.

What about the idea behind "cosmic prostitute"?

I have more to say on your reply later.

One is either deluded because they think they exist, frightened of an ending of what they know and attached to self-gratification or they’re not.

I take it you're enlightened, then? Simple.

~

Steven, I'll reply to you soon as well.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Leyla asks:

What about the idea behind "cosmic prostitute"?

The goofball persona “cosmic prostitute” was created as a means to derive self-gratification. It was done out of weakness.

Besides a few jokes and gags, nothing good ever came out of that experiment. The entire persona was a blunder…

Quinn’s lack of humor and strict seriousness caused the cosmic prostitute. It was done to see if Quinn would budge from his relentless seriousness, but I became bored/tired/exhausted with the whole thing and gave it up.

Usually I ‘m quite serious…

Moreover it was an experiment to see if Quinn was just pretending he had no sense of humor because he thought that’s how a sage ought to behave. However he recently confessed that he lacks a sense of humor, which shreds some light into his relentless seriousness.

Although on many occasions I find Quinn's statements funny, but it is usually unintentional humor, blunt honesty is hilarious.

Confession serves a certain purpose because it destroys any ideals that one has of oneself or others have, which is a positive step.

Each entity has his own imperfections, which are not a problem as long as they are recognized. Some imperfections can be worked on, and some cannot.

The danger is when someone reads your imperfections, and automically assumes they are superior to you because you have revealed weaknesses, but the truth is that each person has a myriad of imperfections so it is futile to try to measure who is ultimately superior to who.

So I suppose this is the dark side of confessing ones imperfections.

[Leyla Shen]

Ryan,

What surprises me is not your criticism of any attachment Freud may have had to his theory, but that you would hold up someone else’s theory without subjecting them to the same scrutiny--as a means to prove your argument?

Whereas the Freudian model holds libidinal (pleasure and death drives/instinct) repression as the source of anxiety, the Rankian model apparently holds anxiety itself as a pre-existing repression of the awareness of mortality (specifically, the fear of death). With Freud, uncertainty is unfavourable directly because it is related to the formative relationships and the insecurities, helplessness and dependencies formed as a result of the child’s love-relationships (with his parents) and the resulting separation as he grows up--not because there is some inherent condition of unfavourableness to uncertainty. Rankian theory suggest that such uncertainties/anxiety is a pre-existing repression as a result of the recognition of one’s mortality. Thus, for Rankians, the fear of death is the primary human anxiety.

The differences might well appear subtle in this light. However, as I said earlier, Freud was--first and foremost--a scientist. With his libidinal theory, he annihilates any consideration for the existence of God. He was an atheist and he considered that a belief in God also was the direct result of these drives/instincts.

Rank, on the other hand, positing a pre-existing anxiety without any direct, causal link other than “fear of death” allows room for the belief in God.

To Freud, the repression of representations of instinct causes anxiety and, thus (among other things), a belief in God. To Rank, Freud’s libidinal theory is a direct symptom of the repression of fear of death rather than the cause of anxiety. So, in the Freudian individual, you have one who grows to become an independent man because of his continuous attempts to reconcile that which he is only conceiving symbolically; thus, causing anxiety. The Rankian individual, on the other hand, you have a person whose life is centred upon either repressing this fear of death or overcoming it through an act of will, which means that he empowers the ego, despite its shortfalls, rather than denying it as something ultimately undesirable.

Ryan wrote:

The yearning for the self-preservation of his sexual theories seems closely related to the nagging fear of his own mortality, which he wasn’t able to resolve.

What do you think of his yearning and fear now?

[David Quinn]

cosmic_prostitute wrote:

Although on many occasions I find Quinn's statements funny, but it is usually unintentional humor, blunt honesty is hilarious.

Are you sure it is unintentional?

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

Are you sure it is unintentional?

like all great men, I'm guilty of making crude generalizations from time to time. Just CP being a wankering bozo again, please dont ban me from the forum Quinn, I'll change I promise...

Leyla wrote:

What surprises me is not your criticism of any attachment Freud may have had to his theory, but that you would hold up someone else’s theory without subjecting them to the same scrutiny--as a means to prove your argument?

its not necessary to bring Rank into this at all. Rank and Jung were simply describing how Freud lived his life, they were simply observing, and then recording what they observed in an intelligent way, one does not to dissect and analyse their work as a means to see if their observations are correct.

I'm not concerned with merely studying and playing with words here, I have no desire to dissect words, I much more concerned with observing actions.

Leyla wrote:

Rank, on the other hand, positing a pre-existing anxiety without any direct, causal link other than “fear of death” allows room for the belief in God.

Rank allowing for the belief in God is quite different to how a Christian or ignorant person believes. It all depends on how much security one derives out of the belief.

For instance: based on previous experiences that have happened to me, (boundary dissolution – merging of minds with another into one mind) I can say with confidence that the universe is conscious, and inherently existing in all things is some sort of supreme intelligence that is infinitely vast.

The key here is that I don’t care if someone says I’m wrong. I don’t get emotional, I don’t go to sleep at night praying because there is nothing I want.
I don’t even think or acknowledge that I believe this until someone brings it to my attention, the rest of the time there is only complete emptiness, and a myriad of thoughts that one is attentive to.

I only believe based on the overwhelming empirical evidence in god’s favor, I would be a fool and completely retarded not to see the truth of this thing.

An atheist is a bore, usually an atheist is a narcissist who is afraid to lose that one last part of the ego to the other.

The key is how much security one derives out of the belief. The belief means nothing, I still see how rotten everything is.

I don’t use the belief for comfort, security, to feel good about myself. It is just an irrefutable fact like "pleasure is pain"

Leyla wrote:

What do you think of his yearning and fear now?

Freud didn’t go all the way as a philosopher, and it seems Rank was much closer to the absolute truth than Freud. But how close is something I cannot know for certain.

A man’s words are not always a good indicator of the quality of intelligence that operates within him, his actions speak much louder.

Here's the truth Leyla, You're in awe of Freud's intellect, it makes you feel horny, it makes you feel powerful to use those big words.

A good metaphor is how a woman enjoys playing with a hard erection, she likes to straddle it, fondle it, suck on it, but she doesnt stop to stare at it long and hard because if she did, she would see the prick for the horror it is...

She would observe the blood vessels popping out of it, the remnets of vaginal fluid from another women underneath the fourskin, blisters, hair, and all the rest of it.

If she observed these simple truths then I suspect she wouldnt jump to heedlessly play with the prick in the first place.

[Leyla Shen]

For instance: based on previous experiences that have happened to me, (boundary dissolution – merging of minds with another into one mind) I can say with confidence that the universe is conscious, and inherently existing in all things is some sort of supreme intelligence that is infinitely vast.

I knew it. Another fundy religionist.

I don’t get emotional,...

Liar.

I don’t even think or acknowledge that I believe this until someone brings it to my attention, the rest of the time there is only complete emptiness, and a myriad of thoughts that one is attentive to.

An atheist is a bore, usually an atheist is a narcissist who is afraid to lose that one last part of the ego to the other.

Mate, you're not "empty"--you're unconscious until a man shakes you out of it.

A bore? Only emotional people get bored.

I just love the way a man can be a woman but still gets to be a man because he has a penis--unlike women who can never be men. You have more in common with Freud than you know.

I suggest you use a dictionary to resolve your inferiority complex.

Freud didn’t go all the way as a philosopher, and it seems Rank was much closer to the absolute truth than Freud. But how close is something I cannot know for certain.

I repeat, Freud was not a philosopher. He was an atheist and a man of science. You are far from understanding absolute truth if you cannot understand this.

You're uncertainty stems from where, Ryan?

A man’s words are not always a good indicator of the quality of intelligence that operates within him, his actions speak much louder.

I'm sure that makes you feel much better about yourself, since you obviously do not have the means with which to impart wisdom and, therefore, glean it from anything said to you.

I only believe based on the overwhelming empirical evidence in god’s favor,...

Please, do tell me about this (uncertain) empirical evidence.

And do get that VD attended to. I have never fucked a man with blisters on his penis. I mean, you'd have to be a complete idiot, wouldn't you.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Leyla wrote

Please, do tell me about this (uncertain) empirical evidence.

Soren Kierkegaard even talked about taking a leap of faith into the religious sphere of life. He used the word god all the time, but not in the context that a christian or a new age person uses it.

the body is just like an empty vessel for something higher to operate, something beyond the intellect. The intellect is very shallow, it believes it can capture the whole, but it cannot.

The religious mind is a primitive mind. Native indians were closer to the truth than most philosophy professors.

it is an area of the mind where the 'known' dies, if one is rooted in emptiness, belief in the supernatural is perfectly reasonable, as long as no emotion is invested.

Quantum theory actually indicates that there are worlds beyond this world, it is only a matter of time before it is proven.

Generally what I find is that people are afraid of believing in the supernatural because there has been so much stigma centered around it, and it has been associated with irrational thinking.

However, if sciences such as Quantum Physics and one's own experiences confirm the supernatural then such a belief is perfectly rational.

The consciousness of god is desperately trying to break through the brains of humanity, but we are too deluded, we have images of ourselves, future hopes, and that is precisely what is preventing that immense intelligence from taking over the body.

Eventually telepathy we become the norm, and it will be self-evident that there is only one rational mind that works through each individual. In essence there will be a complete ending of the individual, and only a collective intelligence will operate.

that's going to be a shocking blow to the narcissist types who are desperately trying to become something great in the eyes of others.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

cosmic

Soren Kierkegaard even talked about taking a leap of faith into the religious sphere of life. He used the word god all the time, but not in the context that a christian or a new age person uses it.

Being a Christian himself, how did Soren Kierkegaard avoid using God in the context of Christians? From what I read of Fear and Trembling, he used the word God precisely how the others did: to denote the invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent being that never sways from doing good.

The intellect is very shallow, it believes it can capture the whole, but it cannot.

Indeed. In the intellect's defense, however, it can summarize pretty well.

Native indians were closer to the truth than most philosophy professors.

Sadly, I agree. In fact, I'm met institutionalized psychopaths who spoke with deeper wisdom than most philosophy professors (which brings us to the interesting question of whether or not having tenure as a professor counts as being "institutionalized").

However, if sciences such as Quantum Physics and one's own experiences confirm the supernatural then such a belief is perfectly rational.

Once the supernatural has been tidily explained, it's no longer supernatural, is it?

Eventually telepathy we become the norm, and it will be self-evident that there is only one rational mind that works through each individual. In essence there will be a complete ending of the individual, and only a collective intelligence will operate.

Neat: a sort of Hegelian philosophy-meets-Dungeons&Dragons utopia. I will be quite shocked when your prediction comes true.

[Greg Shantz]

mookestink wrote:

Being a Christian himself...

Kierkegaard was not a Christian. He knew what being a Christian meant and required and saw that he did not fit the category.

[Jason]

The intellect is very shallow, it believes it can capture the whole, but it cannot.

How did you come to that conclusion? With your intellect? My intellect doesn't work like you have suggested, my intellect thinks that a part is not the Whole, and that the intellect is a part.

[Ryan Rudolph]

mookestink wrote:

Sadly, I agree. In fact, I'm met institutionalized psychopaths who spoke with deeper wisdom than most philosophy professors (which brings us to the interesting question of whether or not having tenure as a professor counts as being "institutionalized").

Hilarious. Yeah I recently took a philosophy course at university called “knowledge, truth and opinion” and I thought it would be fairly profound, but the professor attempted to teach the entire course without psychology. I brought it to his attention that you cannot study these things without studying psychology and he told me they were too different areas of study altogether. Professors are so specialized that they don’t make any sense. He gave me a D on his paper because I didnt use any of the material he assigned, what a wanker!

mookestink wrote:

Eventually telepathy we become the norm, and it will be self-evident that there is only one rational mind that works through each individual. In essence there will be a complete ending of the individual, and only a collective intelligence will operate.

Neat: a sort of Hegelian philosophy-meets-Dungeons&Dragons utopia. I will be quite shocked when your prediction comes true.

Hehe. Perhaps I went a little too far on that one. I guess my main point is that telepathy can become so frequent between you and someone else that you can come to the realization that “you are that person” there is no separation, the separation is an illusion, but of course there is still the existence of one’s quirky personality.

But you are right, my assertion was a little idealistic.

Jason wrote:

How did you come to that conclusion? With your intellect? My intellect doesn't work like you have suggested, my intellect thinks that a part is not the Whole, and that the intellect is a part.

But if you seat in silence and try to understand this ‘part’ called the intellect, you will discover how irrational and frantic the little weasel is. Fantasies of power, sexual fantasies, hopes, dreams, resentment for someone who spoke the truth to you, oh god its endless.

Much of the activity of the intellect is desires, which by nature are irrational. The mind has a difficult time being still.

The realization of how irrational the intellect is represents the possibility of what is possible in every moment.

Of course, after awhile, ones irrational desires (thoughts) just become ‘background noise.’ If emptiness is able to become primary.

An unknowing emptiness is the only road one has to be able to discern the irrational nature of the intellect.

The first step is realizing that you know nothing. Drop all the images you have of yourself and all those other philosophers and just observe yourself.

Studying other philosophers is like training wheels, but the big event is when you sit down for hours at a time and just watch the chaos happening within yourself, within your own messy consciousness.

But make sure you prepare some popcorn first because its one hell of a show!

[Leyla Shen]

Telepathy first, God later.

~

Oy vey! Delusion, thy name is Ryan.

The first step is realizing that you know nothing. Drop all the images you have of yourself and all those other philosophers and just observe yourself.

What is there to observe?

The religious mind is a primitive mind.

Indeed.

I guess my main point is that telepathy can become so frequent between you and someone else that you can come to the realization that “you are that person” there is no separation, the separation is an illusion, but of course there is still the existence of one’s quirky personality.

Oh, really? On what fraudulently intellectual basis have you concluded that separation is an illusion and not non-separation, especially since you need to separate before you can realise this non-separation and, thus, engage in telepathy.

[Leyla Shen]

G Shantz wrote:

Kierkegaard was not a Christian. He knew what being a Christian meant and required and saw that he did not fit the category.

I think that most definitely makes him a Christian--even if on a different order of magnitude.

Kierkegaard was not a Christian.

Could only be true of Jesus himself. That is: Jesus was not a Christian.

[suergaz]

Could only be true of Jesus himself. That is: Jesus was not a Christian.

Yes, but he was also the very first wasn't he? I can't help but think he was the only one.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Leyla wrote:

Oh, really? On what fraudulently intellectual basis have you concluded that separation is an illusion and not non-separation, especially since you need to separate before you can realize this non-separation and, thus, engage in telepathy.

Telepathy isn’t really a choice, for instance hypothetically suppose I poke fun at you with a sex metaphor, and then I feel you beating me down with your thoughts calling me a “deluded jerk” etc. You didn’t choose my attack, and I didn’t choose the emotional reaction that affected the way I felt upon you reading it.

This is why I maintain that the message board can easily become a drug, where all parties become addicted to the psychic mental wars. It is actually quite childish, and I will give it up very shortly.

Moreover this interplay is one undivided process. There is really only one collective consciousness that you and I are both a part of.

I don’t want to sound like a new age flaky here, but when two people have clarity, there is only one intelligence there with the illusion of two, it is quite paradoxical.

[suergaz]

I don’t want to sound like a new age flaky here, but when two people have clarity, there is only one intelligence there with the illusion of two, it is quite paradoxical.

What illusion? Selves have self in common. Leyla only has no taste for the word telepathy, as it doesn't accurately describe the phenomenon.

[Leyla Shen]

zag wrote:

Yes, but he was also the very first wasn't he?

Only to a Christian, who adopted him as their messiah (which is the Hebrew word for christ--christ being derived from the Greek chriein, meaning “anointed”). Now, Jesus was a Jew who reprimanded the Jews (back then) for not mixin’ it with the gentiles (non-Jews). They, as the story goes, rejected him as the Messiah on the basis of the Torah (Old Testament)--and what we call Christians (any non-Jew, back then, finding their “salvation” through him) adopted him as the son of God.

That’s basically the connection for Christians between the Old and the New Testaments (now, I may not have had to make this glaringly obvious point [to me] but I decided to anyway, just in case).

Nothing much has changed.

I can't help but think he (Jesus) was the only one.

Well, to be honest, I've not read any Kierkegaard and was only going on G Shantz's suggestion. If Kierkegaard called himself a Christian (in any capacity whatsover, even if only by his faith in Jesus as the Son of God) whilst acknowledging his lack of christianness, I say that very much makes him a Christian!

You cannot call yourself an annointed one and at the same time acknowledge your unannointedness. Not unless you're a Christian, that is.

Incidentally, this is one of the fundamental differences between the monotheism in Christianity and Islam. The notion of idolatory. In Islam, both Jesus and Muhammed are prophets. Neither were the "Son of God."

I figure there's a bit of wisdom in that.

.

[Leyla Shen]

zag also wrote:

Leyla only has no taste for the word telepathy, as it doesn't accurately describe the phenomenon.

That's right. It's a useless word.

[suergaz]

Leyla, the title 'Christ' is really irrelevant. He who had it, Jesus, followed himself before any other. His followers ultimately could not follow him.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Telepathy is a useless word? well...

Suppose I walk into a social setting where a group of humans have gathered, but they are afraid to communicate because they are afraid of being hurt, humiliated, etc. So one sits down and can feel the group anxiety without one word being spoken.

isnt that a form of communication without the use of symbols?

people communicate in emotion, not words. The truth is that a wise individual is rooted in a energy field that has a certain emotional maturity to it.

And when others step into his circle, they feel the maturity of that field.

the field itself communicates to others without the use of the spoken word.

After talks with Jiddu Krishnamurti people would ask him for answers, but he would simply say sit with it and everything will become clear.

There is a form of communication beyond the spoken word, beyond the symbol. Why is telepathy a useless term to use as a means to describe this process?

[R. Steven Coyle]

The illusion of separation shouldn't be confused with telepathy -- direct mind to mind communcation. The One Mind of Huang Po, the Cosmic Consciousness of Whitman, are both expressions of the same formless reality. Telepathy, as described by the Buddha, is communcation at light speed. The ability to mentally communicate over vast space.

[edit: grammer]