I'm guessing from your age, that you took most of your Psych courses back in the days when Freud was God of the Psychoanalysis Universe, and every word dripping from his pen was considered Holy Scripture.
Perhaps you're not aware that since those days, much of his Holy Writ has been debunked.
In particular, this alleged mother/son, emotionally-incestual, Oedipus-Complex issue.
As far back as 1974, I remember Anthro professors proudly relating how field anthropologists were responsible for blowing up a number of Freud's most cherished Commandments.
The fabled Oedipus Complex was one of these. Pre-Freud, most people likely assumed that teenaged boys' rebelliousness against their fathers was due to the father being the head disciplinarian in the home.
Enter Sigmund Freud. Most human problems were now redefined as being sex-related. According to Freud, boys rebelled against their dads because boys naturally long to have a sexual relationship with their moms, and are therefore jealous of their dads for this reason .
What most people didn't know was that Freud himself had an Oedipal Complex (and that it's actually pretty rare), and that Freud, assuming that everything about himself was "normal" and "average," decreed that every other male had this same sexual hangup. (Anyone who said they didn't was no doubt in denial, and the sexual hangups they got from living in repressive Victorian cultures were blinding them to the truths about themselves). And so generations of psychotherapists tried to force this Holy Writ down the throats of their confused male patients.
What made it hard to disprove Freud was that in most known cultures, dads were BOTH the mother's sexual partner AND the chief lawgiver/enforcer in the family.
Enter the anthropologists. Long after Freud was gone, they discovered a culture in some remote place where the two roles of "law enforcer" and "sleeps with mom" were split among different men. In this culture, instead of brides leaving home to live with their husbands, they never left. Boys were raised in mothers' childhood home, with the mothers' eldest brothers being the chief lawgivers/enforcers. The boys' fathers lived apart, but visited for conjugal purposes and to hang out a bit with their kids.
While researching this unique culture, the anthropologists found out that the boys mostly rebelled against their UNCLES, but had great friendships with their fathers. So obviously it was discipline they rebelled against and not sexual jealousy towards their parents.
Whoops! Another of the biggest pillars in the Temple Of Freud just crumbled!
I really didn't want to get off on this much of a tangent. The only reason I brought all this up is that I suspect your fixation on "emotional incest" between MM and his mother might be mostly due to the era in which you studied Psych.
Your assumptions are all wet.
1. My program had a Freudian semester or two of multiple courses.
2. A behaviorist semester or two of multiple courses and
3. An existential semester or two of multiple courses.
And, my term paper for the Freudian section was titled:
FRODO AND DR FRUD. It was a scathing satire of Freud. Actually also hilariously funny. Wish I still had a copy. The prof first wanted to flunk me. I told him it met all his criteria to please read it again. He did, agreed and gave me an A.
I never have cared much for Freud.
I was going, regarding Murray, Stricly by his own writings as well as my other experiences with families that seem to match his in a list of respects.
You are welcome to flush your off the wall assumptions about Freud and I.
I forgive you.