Good day!
My goals in this series of essays are seven fold.
1. To teach Freudian Psychoanalysis as Freud created it -- both before and after he still very controversially 'abandoned' his Traumacy-Seduction Theory between 1895 and 1899;
2. To catch some of the things that Freud missed along the way that other post-Freudian schools of psychology picked up and utilized to their benefit -- which could/can be brought back into a much 'larger, more integrative brand' of 'Quantum-Dialectical Psychoanalysis.
3. To criticize/deconstruct some of Freud's most serious errors made along the way -- which may or may not have been influenced by his ethical failings and/or his own 'character/transference neuroses'.
4. To focus on the very critical time period -- mentioned above -- in the evolution of Psychoanalysis between 1895 and 1899, and try to figure out -- just like thousands of academics and professionals before me -- why Freud basically turned Psychoanalysis upside down during this period and changed his central focus from 'traumacy and childhood sexual abuse theory' (pre-1897/pre-Classical Theory) to 'biological instinct theory' (post-1896/Classical Theory);
5. To introduce, as we move along, and later in more concentrated detail, my own particular brand of 'DGB Integrative (Quantum-Dialectical) Philosophy-Psychology, which within this context, is essentially a 'partly new, partly old, brand of Psychoanalysis' designed, among other things, to bridge the gap between 'Pre-Classical and Classical Freudian Psychoanalysis' .
6. However, my integrative DGB perspective is also designed to bridge the gap between Classical Psychoanalysis and Object Relations, as well as borrow elements certain elements from the following schools of psychology: Adlerian Psychology, Jungian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, Transactional Analysis, Primal Therapy, General Semantics and Cognitive Therapy.
7. I have a 'leaning' towards the main foundational, assumptive base of 'Pre-Classical Psychoanalysis' (before 1897) which I view as being much easier to 'logistically' follow, more 'clinically connected', less convoluted, less subject to Freud's 'wild, instinctual' interpretations. My general, overall feeling is that Freud, after 1899, became 'more clinically and client-alienated', more righteously dogmatic, less empathetic towards clients, more abstract and obtuse, less connected with science in any meaningful way...
8. This is not to say that I don't value highly some of Freud's creative, theoretical and clinical ideas that came out after 1899 -- many of them I value very highly. It is just that his whole philosophy and psychology seemed to treat his pre-1897 work as if it never happened, and this, to me, for whatever reason, was Freud's most glaring philosophical and psychological mistake. Impulse and fantasy theory are great, Oedipal Theory is fine within 'generally metaphorical limits', 'transference' theory is great, although quite expanded under DGB theory, 'narcissistic' theory is great, the whole structural model of the 'ego', 'id', and 'superego' is fine as far as it goes, but is too restricted and needs 'expansion' in ways that Object Relations, Jungian Psychology, and Transactional Analysis, moved 'away' from 'Classical' Psychoanalysis afterwards. The 'life' and 'death' instinct are generally too abstract, ambiguous, and 'clinically non-useful'.
All of these things, we will discuss more fully as we move along.
Sometimes -- like now -- I come to the realization that there is even more Spinozian-Hegelian Multi-Dialectic Wholism and Idealism in my thinking than I would have previously cared to admit. Implicit in my broadly integrative work is the underlying assumption that every school of psychology/psychotherapy 'owns' a share of the 'truth' in terms of the 'structure' and the 'dynamics' of the human psyche -- and how to work towards healing it.
In Hegelian language, every school of pscyhology owns a share of 'The Absolute Truth' -- and in more spiritual-religious Hegelian conceptuology -- a share of the knowledge and understanding of 'God's Creation' -- in this case, man's psychological functioning (and dysfunctioning).
Sometimes it is just as important to ask the right questions as it is to have the right answers -- and in this collection of essays, I intend to ask some pretty unusual, previously unasked questions.
Here is an example of such a question: What would have happened to the evolution of psychoanalysis if Freud had created the concept of the 'id' in 1894 rather than in 1923?
Assumptively speaking, isn't it logically conceivable that -- given the two radically different approaches to Psychoanalysis before and after 1897 (Traumacy-Seduction Theory vs. Biological Instinct Theory) -- that the 'ID' before 1897 could have stood for 'The Isolation-Dissociation Traumacy Chamber' in the unconscious rather than the 'seething caldron of burning sexual, survival, and aggressive-destructive-death instincts/desires/impulses/drives?
Jung's 'Shadow' concept covers a few more sets of 'assumptive theoretical possibilities' than Freud's 'Id' concept, and from this Jungian-Freudian integration as well as the answer to the question I just asked and answered, comes my own concept of 'The Shadow-Id' -- or 'Secret Interest' (Chamber)' which may or may not fall within the confines of the conscious and/or sub/unconsious personality.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Let me start by telling you a bit about my psychology background which I have done elsewhere in Hegel's Hotel, as in my profile, but I will repeat parts of my educational profile here.
For those who are not familiar with me, and this site yet, my name is David Bain.
Firstly, for good and for bad, I am not a psychoanalyst -- nor have I ever stepped a foot inside a pscyhoanalytic educational facility or a psychoanalyst's office.
Depending on how controversial and provocative I get during this series of lecture-essays, I may or may not be welcome into a Psychoanalytic educational facility.
That may depend on whether or not I decide to venture into Freud's 'cocaine abuse' -- and connected medical misbehaviors, as well as the possiblity that the combination of this abuse and his medical misadventures might have had any impact on Freud's 'sudden change in theory between 1895 and 1899.
So far I have deleted four of my own papers on 'Freud, Fliess, Emma Ekstein, and Cocaine Abuse' -- not because I wish to play hide-and-seek with you in this most unfortunate area of 'Freud's neurotic behavior and medical liability', as opposed to the many areas of his creative brilliance but rather -- because I wish to warn you ahead of time if or when I come back to this area and offer up some 'fascimile' of what I have already written.
Anna Freud died in 1982. No one has to feel the need to protect her anymore. Jeffrey Masson went part of the way in the Freud, Fliess, and Emma Ekstein medical fiasco. He didn't go far enough. Did this most unfortunate incident -- and bad ethical mistake on the part of Freud and Fliess in early 1895 negatively influence Freud's later theoretical change of thinking?
We will delve into this historical issue at a later point of time when we enter into a full discussion of the infamous Freudian Abandonment (Suppression?) of The Traumacy-Seduction Theory Controversy between 1897 and 1900.
Essentially, I have taught myself psychoanalysis albeit with a pretty substantial and significant psychoanalytic library at my immediate perusal. That starts and ends with The Standard Edition of The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud edited by James Strachey in collaboration with Anna Freud, Assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson.
And of course, my computer -- and the internet -- is The World's Biggest Personal Library.
I will reference my work so that you can follow along where I am following Freud (or some other theorist).
I have an Honours B.A. in psychology from The University of Waterloo, Ontario (a long time ago, 1974-1979, with a minor in Human Relations and Counelling Services).
My Honours Thesis was written on a combination of General Semanticss, Cognitive Therapy, 'Ego-Functioning and Dysfunctioning', and Humanistic-Existentialism. The essay was called simply: 'Evaluation and Health' (1979).
I was in an out of The Gestalt Institute, participating in different Gestalt personal growth and therapeutic training workshops and programs, starting in 1979 and ending around 1991. I studied quite a bit of Gestalt Therapy during this time -- which led me to all three of Jung, Freud, and Hegel -- with Hegel being the 'philosophical and dialectic common denominator' behind all of: Psychoanalysis, Jungian Psychology, and Gestalt Therapy.
The basic post-Hegelian principle here is this: By integrating different bi-polar opposites together, we often create a better, more energetic, and more functional -- 'dialectic whole'. Extending this principle -- by integrating a whole host of different bi-polar opposites together, we create a better 'multi-dialectic -- or multi-integrative --whole'.
'"The greater the contrast, says Jung, the greater is the potential. Great energy only comes from correspondingly great tensions between opposites." In every case, the possibilities are contained within the opposites. What is required is their interaction, so that the dialectic may be permitted to operate.' (Joel Latner, The Gestalt Therapy Book, 1973, 86).
This is probably the most important premise behind my entire philosophical-psychological project and treatise here -- a tribute to Freud, Jung, and Perls, as well as all their philosophical predecessors -- Anaximander, Heraclitus, Lao Tse ('yin'/'yang'), Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, as well as other philosophers and psycholigists not mentioned.
Hegel was probably the philosopher who put the whole 'dialectic philosophy and logic premise' in its most coherent, wholistic, and evolutionary fashion. Hegel's 'dialectic integrative logic' could be used quite differently -- and often more creatively and constructively -- than his predecessor's -- Aristotle's -- 'Aristiolean logic' where 'A' was distinguised from 'B', inferences were made concerning 'A causing B', or 'B causing A', both were emphasized for having clearly distinguishing individual properties, and never did/do the two meet...
From Aristoltean Logic we get the 'competitive, adversary approach' of 'Class A' vs. 'Class B' -- The Democrats vs. The Repubicans, The Catholics vs. The Protestants, The Liberals vs. The Conservatives, The Capitalists vs. The Socialists...and so on...
From 'dialectic logic', you get names with hyphens -- 'humanistic-existentialism', 'philosophy-psychology', 'the mind-brain', 'the mind-body dialectic', the 'Liberal-Conservatives' or 'Conservative-Liberals'...and so on....
Dialectic logic is a more 'integrative, compromise-formation' type of philosophy where you do your best to integrate two different philosophies in a manners that holds onto the best properties of each -- and melts them together...
As much as I am a promoter of dialectic, post-Hegelian, humanistic-existential logic, life, nature, the philosophy and psychology of man, indeed, the whole history and evolution of life and mankind, can be viewed as a 'collision between Aristoltean (Either/Or) and Hegelian (Dialectic-Integrative) Logic'...
It is important to know when the best time to use either/or both sets of logic in our day to day problem solving and conflict resolving challenges. Both have strengths, limitations, and liabilities in different contexts.
If I am sitting here at my computer all day or night, in a supreme effort to work intensely, and finish Hegel's Hotel the way I want it finished, this may be what is required in order for me to deliver the type of 'specialized focus and attention' to my subject matter that will allow me to achieve my high-striving, ambitious goals here...to my reasonable satisfaction...
However, if the rest of my life is falling apart because I have not attended to the other things I need to attend to in my life --- my health, proper sunshine and exercise, my economics, my love relationship, my kids -- then 'Hegel's Hotel' may have a heavy cost attached to it that can ride roughshod over my 'wholistic health'.
My mood, my energy level, may be down, my level of covert or overt aggression may be up, which may start reflecting in my essays...I start attacking Freud more aggressively which may or may not be warrented -- these are all things that need to be taken into consideration when we start talking about the concept of 'wholistic health', and 'complete homesostatic (multi-bi-polar, dialectic) balance' -- as opposed to 'specialized functioning' and/or, in this case, 'hobbyaholism'.
Life -- for man -- is a righteous and/or narcissistic powerplay between conflicting interpretations, values, ethics, morals, instincts, impulses, drives, goals, plans, ideals...opposites...as well as negotiating and/or coercing a 'workable, compromising, harmonious balance' between these same areas of opposing conflict for as long as this 'homeostatic-dialectic balance' can be successfully and/or unsuccessfully negotiated, as well as sustained and/or maintained.
This, essentially, is the conflict between dictatorship/autocrasy, collusion between small groups of people, and/or a thousand different types of partial, representative or non-representative, democracy or 'pseudo'-democracy. (I tackle politics on two different blogsites -- Canadian Politics, and American Politics.)
Lump all of these different approaches, good and bad, into the art and/or science of 'conflict-negotiation and resolution' -- some with constructive, healthy 'dialectical' results, others with greater or lesser, negative, destructive 'dialectic' results.
Ideally -- and dialectically speaking -- the best possible result is a 'creative, positive synergy' -- where two or more different and/or conflicting theories, philosophies, characteristics, lifestyles, entities... come together to form something that is greater as a 'whole' than any and/or all of the different reductionistic parts or pieces functioning alone.
The human mind and body are perfect examples -- each of them have their own separate 'structural organs' and 'dynamic processes' -- and synergized together, they function wholistically, as well, for better or worse depending on the 'quality of the synergy'. There are good and bad 'synergies' or 'compromise-formations' -- the type that come together in the form of 'neurotic symptoms' and the type that come together in the form of 'creative briliance' and 'structural and/or dynamic masterpieces'.
There are different qualities of homeostatic-dialectic balances.
Freud's pursuit into the 'neurotic symptoms' of 'hysterical ladies' took him into the realm of both healthy and unhealthy homeostatic balances -- and distinguishing the difference between the two. Along the way, Freud both became aware of, confronted, and/or avoided his own particular 'neurotic behaviors and challenges' -- sometimes to the 'betterment' of psychoanalysis as a whole, and sometimes to its wholistic detriment, limitations, and liabilities.
From my historical perch here in 2011, I have made it my own personal challenge to go back into history -- back through the years from 1880 to 1938, and particularly focusing in on the years between 1895 and 1905 -- to dig out the good, the bad, and the ugly in the life of Sigmund Freud as it pertained to the evolution -- and/or 'de-evolution' -- of Psychoanalysis, particularly in the context of how Psychoanalysis is being theorized and practised today, using my own brand of 'Post-Hegelian, Humanistic-Existential Dialectically Integrative Philosophy-Psychology' as my guide posts (which like any brand of philosophy and/or psychology is not immune to its own respective 'deconstructive' criticisms andchallenges).
Such is the way of the 'dialectically evolving world', with you and me, individuallly and collectively, pressing our own way through it, doing our best or less than best, to get to where we want to go.
When we are 'stuck' we fall into 'neurasthenia' -- a Freudian word for what I would call 'existential neurosis', which can be equated with 'lethargy', 'inertia', 'lack of energy', 'depression', 'lack of good awareness and/or contact with ourselves and the world...
When we are 'successful' climbing our own particular 'Mt. Everest'...and planting a flag on top...
Or building our own version of 'Hegel's Hotel'....and viewing the scenery, the city, from the top of our freshly built construction...
Hopefully we take a long moment -- an Ayn Rand/Howard Rourke, Fountainhead moment -- and celebrate in 'Apollonian and/or Dionsyian fashion' -- our spirtually uplifting, existential self and social victory.
We have climbed or flown over the obstacles and abysses below us.
That is enough for today...
-- dgb, March 16th, 2011 (modified and updated March 21st, 2011).
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
