Childlike Bliss

"One might compare the relation of the ego to the idwith that between a rider and his horse. The horse provides the locomotor energy, and the rider has the prerogative of determining the goal and of guiding the movements of his powerful mount towards it. But all too often in the relations between the ego and the id we find a picture of the less ideal situation in which the rider is obliged to guide his horse in the direction in which it itself wants to go."- Freud
From New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, 1932.

A debate arose in class on Wednesday about the term "childlike". Sean mentioned that just because a behavior, thought, or piece of art is "childlike" doesn´t necessarily make it bad or regressive. And for that matter, regression doesn´t necessarily have to be bad too. If art takes us back to a state of play in childhood and helps us resolve current issues, I would consider it a good thing. The id is instinctual. It is uninhibited. It contains raw emotion without censorship or repression. The id is perhaps the most honest and pure part of the self; the closest to reality without being clouded by the expectations of the superego and the pride of the ego. Some theorists (including Plato) argue that from birth, we are corrupted by the outside world and that a return to our original selves would be ideal/a path to true happiness. Could this include a return to the purity of the life of the solitary id? With just the id (as in childhood), there are no repercussions, no guilt, no inhibitions, no obligations; just ignorant bliss. Would art ( such as the literature described by Freud) then be a tool and a mean of obtaining this state of mind, purity, and ultimately happiness? Am I reading too far into this? What do YOU think?