Page 4 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

06 Jan 2012, 10:08 am

Those who reject psychoanalysis and its descendant psychodynamics have failed to integrate the critical experience of perceiving the good breast and the bad breast as different parts of the whole. The infantile splitting prevents the selfobject from introjecting a more realistic view of people, fixating the personality at a borderline personality structure.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,016

06 Jan 2012, 10:16 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Those who reject psychoanalysis and its descendant psychodynamics have failed to integrate the critical experience of perceiving the good breast and the bad breast as different parts of the whole. The infantile splitting prevents the selfobject from introjecting a more realistic view of people, fixating the personality at a borderline personality structure.


Image



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

06 Jan 2012, 11:43 am

ruveyn wrote:
Lack of vetting does not legally forbid a process. It merely indicates there is no rational basis for assuming the process is sound. If people want to spend $100.00 for voodoo they are perfectly free to do so.

ruveyn


Okay, we're back on the same page.

However, I think you are entirely wrong in one important area. Consider the statement, "there is no rational basis for assuming the process is sound," from the patient's perspective.

A patient has an overwhelmingly rational basis to make decisions--patients are the only people who know how they feel. If a patient believes that psychoanalysis is helping, then the patient is free to conclude that the process is sound and the patient has an eminently rational basis for that conclusion. And we are in no place to gainsay that, absent evidence to the contrary.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

06 Jan 2012, 11:50 am

visagrunt wrote:

A patient has an overwhelmingly rational basis to make decisions--patients are the only people who know how they feel. If a patient believes that psychoanalysis is helping, then the patient is free to conclude that the process is sound and the patient has an eminently rational basis for that conclusion. And we are in no place to gainsay that, absent evidence to the contrary.


If self delusion and irrationality work, then so be it.

Humans have a supreme talent for fooling themselves.

ruveyn



Saturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 317
Location: UK

06 Jan 2012, 12:59 pm

NarcissusSavage wrote:
In my opinion, one of the greatest contributors to "mental dysfunction" is forced inclusion within a society. For example, I am a US citizen, I live within a society and am compelled to modify my behavior to within the standards of the American societal rules, and am bound by its laws, and face the general opinions of other Americans in my interactions. I made no decision to join this group, yet am fully bound to it and responsible for conforming regardless. This forced inclusion may be a root cause of feelings of powerlessness, discontent and numerous other "mental health" issues. My philosophies of life, my choices of behavior and what I consider important in general does not align well with the society I have found myself a member of. The compulsive nature of inclusion only further aggravates this and amplifies it to levels of dysfunction.

I have often pondered why citizenship is mandatory, and why there is not a system in place for people who are born into a society whom disagree with it on fundamental levels. Then again, I disagree with it on so many levels I shouldn’t be surprised that compulsive inclusion is just another one on the list.


I agree. I think this for me is core to 'the human condition': natural intellectual animals living thoroughly within civilization rather than within nature as our pre-human ancestors did. But don't forget that civilization for all it's troubles, has provided and continues to provide great benefits to us, ones which we not be able to have in a state of nature. Civilization is basically here to stay so the question is how best to optomise that civilization and ones individual life within it.



Last edited by Saturn on 06 Jan 2012, 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Saturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 317
Location: UK

06 Jan 2012, 1:01 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Those who reject psychoanalysis and its descendant psychodynamics have failed to integrate the critical experience of perceiving the good breast and the bad breast as different parts of the whole. The infantile splitting prevents the selfobject from introjecting a more realistic view of people, fixating the personality at a borderline personality structure.


Not necessarily BS but you'll have to explain what on earth you're talking about for those of us non-initiates.



Laz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,544
Location: Dave's Toilet

06 Jan 2012, 1:32 pm

Saturn wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
In my opinion, one of the greatest contributors to "mental dysfunction" is forced inclusion within a society. For example, I am a US citizen, I live within a society and am compelled to modify my behavior to within the standards of the American societal rules, and am bound by its laws, and face the general opinions of other Americans in my interactions. I made no decision to join this group, yet am fully bound to it and responsible for conforming regardless. This forced inclusion may be a root cause of feelings of powerlessness, discontent and numerous other "mental health" issues. My philosophies of life, my choices of behavior and what I consider important in general does not align well with the society I have found myself a member of. The compulsive nature of inclusion only further aggravates this and amplifies it to levels of dysfunction.

I have often pondered why citizenship is mandatory, and why there is not a system in place for people who are born into a society whom disagree with it on fundamental levels. Then again, I disagree with it on so many levels I shouldn’t be surprised that compulsive inclusion is just another one on the list.


I agree. I think this for me is core to 'the human condition': natural intellectual animals living thoroughly within civilization rather than within nature as our pre-human ancestors did. But don't forget that civilization for all it's troubles, has provided and continues to provide great benefits to us, ones which we not be able to have in a state of nature. Civilization is basically here to stay so the question is how best to optomise that civilization and ones individual life within it.


Go into a thread about Psychoanalysis, get a statement of Existentialism


_________________
"Tall people can be recognized by three things: generosity in the design, humanity in the execution and moderation in success"


NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

06 Jan 2012, 2:43 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Those who reject psychoanalysis and its descendant psychodynamics have failed to integrate the critical experience of perceiving the good breast and the bad breast as different parts of the whole. The infantile splitting prevents the selfobject from introjecting a more realistic view of people, fixating the personality at a borderline personality structure.

Sorry, I'm allergic to bullsh*t.

The ego defense mechanism of acting out (through your colorful meme) may be indicative of a borderline personality structure. It may be suspected that you were deprived of mother's milk—on the receiving end of the "bad breast"—and thus cycle through periods of idealization and devaluation. In this case, you see the analyst as a sort of surrogate father figure, devaluing him and his sage advice about the good/bad breast phenomenon. This transference could lead to a breakdown of the therapeutic alliance, so it is necessary for you to re-enact the developmental stage of weaning by suckling upon the analyst's strap-on mammories with baby bottles of warm milk attached. Then you will come to the developmental stage of realizing that the very same breast that sustains you (i.e., the good breast) is also the breast that frustrate you (i.e., the bad breast) and your grandiose, infantile urges, enacted in the schizoid-paranoid position. After this, you will need to start dealing with the Oedipal complex, castration anxiety, etc., eventually reaching the genital stage of psychological maturity.



Saturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 317
Location: UK

06 Jan 2012, 2:53 pm

At which point you are finally ready to don the strap-on mammaries yourself.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,627
Location: scotland

06 Jan 2012, 3:16 pm

Saturn wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
In my opinion, one of the greatest contributors to "mental dysfunction" is forced inclusion within a society. For example, I am a US citizen, I live within a society and am compelled to modify my behavior to within the standards of the American societal rules, and am bound by its laws, and face the general opinions of other Americans in my interactions. I made no decision to join this group, yet am fully bound to it and responsible for conforming regardless. This forced inclusion may be a root cause of feelings of powerlessness, discontent and numerous other "mental health" issues. My philosophies of life, my choices of behavior and what I consider important in general does not align well with the society I have found myself a member of. The compulsive nature of inclusion only further aggravates this and amplifies it to levels of dysfunction.

I have often pondered why citizenship is mandatory, and why there is not a system in place for people who are born into a society whom disagree with it on fundamental levels. Then again, I disagree with it on so many levels I shouldn’t be surprised that compulsive inclusion is just another one on the list.


I agree. I think this for me is core to 'the human condition': natural intellectual animals living thoroughly within civilization rather than within nature as our pre-human ancestors did. But don't forget that civilization for all it's troubles, has provided and continues to provide great benefits to us, ones which we not be able to have in a state of nature. Civilization is basically here to stay so the question is how best to optomise that civilization and ones individual life within it.


don't you think it might be the nature of social organisation within civilisation, rather than civilisation itself, that might be the problem? for instance, don't you think that authoritarian conditioning might well be a source of trauma?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Last edited by peebo on 06 Jan 2012, 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,627
Location: scotland

06 Jan 2012, 3:24 pm

erich fromm's fear of freedom is interesting on a somewhat related note:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... rg&cad=rja


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

06 Jan 2012, 3:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:
If self delusion and irrationality work, then so be it.

Humans have a supreme talent for fooling themselves.

ruveyn


Congratulations, you have learned the first lesson of clinical medical practice. Sometimes the most effective treatment is the sugar pill or the saline injection.


_________________
--James


Saturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 317
Location: UK

06 Jan 2012, 3:53 pm

peebo wrote:
Saturn wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
In my opinion, one of the greatest contributors to "mental dysfunction" is forced inclusion within a society. For example, I am a US citizen, I live within a society and am compelled to modify my behavior to within the standards of the American societal rules, and am bound by its laws, and face the general opinions of other Americans in my interactions. I made no decision to join this group, yet am fully bound to it and responsible for conforming regardless. This forced inclusion may be a root cause of feelings of powerlessness, discontent and numerous other "mental health" issues. My philosophies of life, my choices of behavior and what I consider important in general does not align well with the society I have found myself a member of. The compulsive nature of inclusion only further aggravates this and amplifies it to levels of dysfunction.

I have often pondered why citizenship is mandatory, and why there is not a system in place for people who are born into a society whom disagree with it on fundamental levels. Then again, I disagree with it on so many levels I shouldn’t be surprised that compulsive inclusion is just another one on the list.


I agree. I think this for me is core to 'the human condition': natural intellectual animals living thoroughly within civilization rather than within nature as our pre-human ancestors did. But don't forget that civilization for all it's troubles, has provided and continues to provide great benefits to us, ones which we not be able to have in a state of nature. Civilization is basically here to stay so the question is how best to optomise that civilization and ones individual life within it.


don't you think it might be the nature of social organisation within civilisation, rather than civilisation itself, that might be the problem? for instance, don't you think that authoritarian conditioning might well be a source of trauma?


To say 'the nature of social organisation within civilization' is, to me, another way of saying 'the nature of civilization' or the nature of 'a particular civilization', and to this extent I would agree with you, that that is 'the problem'. However, I do find it hard to see how, in practice, any form of civilization and the various sub-forms within that, can be immune to generating fundamental difficulties in terms of individual psychic life. And this is because any state of culture rather than of nature demands the sublimation of natural inclinations in exchange for the aggregated benefits of the civilized state. What is more, within a civilization, natural desires will express themselves in one way or another and this will lead to social and economic injustice, among other things, where some get what they want at the expense of others not getting what they want.

I think authoritarian conditioning is at least a major source of trauma. For Freud, at least, I understand, the early Freud, the primal authoritarian trauma is the one inflicted by the father on the son by barring his full enjoyment of the mother. The corresponding electra complex on the female side, I find less compelling, but the general idea, for me, significantly illuminates, the causes for individual and collective, what has come to be known as, psychic dysfunction. For Freud, the authoritarian rules and norms of society by which we are all conditioned, are the father writ large. So we have trauma occuring through the conditioning by the family and by the wider state and culture as a whole.

How do you see it?



Saturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 317
Location: UK

06 Jan 2012, 4:11 pm

peebo wrote:
erich fromm's fear of freedom is interesting on a somewhat related note:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... rg&cad=rja


Looks like a very interesting big-picture account of things. Thanks for the link. Definitely looks on topic for me!



Saturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 317
Location: UK

06 Jan 2012, 4:22 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Those who reject psychoanalysis and its descendant psychodynamics have failed to integrate the critical experience of perceiving the good breast and the bad breast as different parts of the whole. The infantile splitting prevents the selfobject from introjecting a more realistic view of people, fixating the personality at a borderline personality structure.

Sorry, I'm allergic to bullsh*t.

The ego defense mechanism of acting out (through your colorful meme) may be indicative of a borderline personality structure. It may be suspected that you were deprived of mother's milk—on the receiving end of the "bad breast"—and thus cycle through periods of idealization and devaluation. In this case, you see the analyst as a sort of surrogate father figure, devaluing him and his sage advice about the good/bad breast phenomenon. This transference could lead to a breakdown of the therapeutic alliance, so it is necessary for you to re-enact the developmental stage of weaning by suckling upon the analyst's strap-on mammories with baby bottles of warm milk attached. Then you will come to the developmental stage of realizing that the very same breast that sustains you (i.e., the good breast) is also the breast that frustrate you (i.e., the bad breast) and your grandiose, infantile urges, enacted in the schizoid-paranoid position. After this, you will need to start dealing with the Oedipal complex, castration anxiety, etc., eventually reaching the genital stage of psychological maturity.


I actually find this quite persuasive as a candidate course of therapy. I think there are difficulties, though. I'm not convinced that the goal of psychological maturity is anything but an ideal. This would go towards explaining why so many, particularly Americans, spend so long in therapy but, as I understand from anecdote, struggle to make clear progress. This would also partly explain the cult-like appeal of psychoanalysis: the current state of unworthiness, the path to liberation, and the gurus to be followed along the way.

Anyone else have a view on this?