Finished......April 15th, 2012...
.......................................................................................
1. Introduction
An 'Internalized' and 'Externalized' Visual Image of Hegel's Hotel
Let me start from scratch here and let you know how I came up with the name and the imagery of 'Hegel's Hotel'.
There is both an 'internalized vision and version' of Hegel's Hotel that I carry around in my head, and from which I base my writing and my network of blogsites that you have found right here. My internalized (or introjected) version of Hegel's Hotel includes a 'philosophy wing' of the hotel, a 'psychology wing' of the hotel which are closely linked together as they influence each other 'dialectically' -- i.e., my philosophy wing influences my psychology wing, and my psychology wing influences my philosophy wing.
Within each wing of 'Hegel's Hotel' -- such as the philosophy and the psychology wing -- there are 'X' number of 'rooms', some of which have already been created, and some of which still need to be created. For example, in the philosophy wing, there is 'Anaximander's Room', and there is 'Heraclitus' Room' and there is 'Lao Tse's Room' and there is 'Socrates' Room' and 'Plato's Room' and 'Aristotle's Room' and 'Spinoza' Room'....and so on, and so on.....again, some already created, others that hopefully will be created one day down the line here before I run out of time and/or energy and/or health....
For some philosophers and/or psychologists, a 'room' in Hegel's Hotel does just not seem sufficient -- for someone like Freud, it is like I have to give them a whole 'floor' or 'two' and one of my 'finest presidential suites' to accomodate all of the historical and editorial material that I want to put into this section of Hegel's Hotel.
Hegel's Hotel has become so 'Freud-dominated' that I could very easily 'open a new hotel' and call it 'Freud's Hotel'....
Speaking of which...'maps' and 'models' are like 'houses', 'estates', or 'hotels' inside our heads...We use our maps and models to 'orientate ourselves' relative to 'the real world'....The better are maps or models are, the better our 'internal orientation' is likely to be...This was the working thesis of Alfred Korzybski in his classic treatise, 'Science and Sanity', written in 1933.
.....................................................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski ([kɔˈʐɨpski]) (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American philosopher and scientist. He is remembered for developing the theory of general semantics. Korzybski's work argued that human knowledge of the world is limited both by the human nervous system and by the structure of language.
Korzybski thought that people do not have access to direct knowledge of reality; rather they have access to perceptions and to a set of beliefs which human society has confused with direct knowledge of reality. Korzybski is remembered as the author of the dictum: "The map is not the territory".
............................................................................................
Now as Freud himself articulated early in his work (1895-96), once one knows what one is doing, it is pretty easy to ascertain that our childhood experiences, memories of these experiences, and 'generalized maps of these experiences' tend to be pretty, darn similar to our later life experiences, 'adult lifestyle' -- and 'neurotic symptoms'.
Indeed in Freud's early work up to 1896, Freud was focused on 'memories' and memories were central to his early 'working psychoanalytic theories and formulas'...such as 'Hysterics suffer from reminescences.' (1895), and 'Memories co-operate with each other.' (1896) In my rendition of General Semantic language, memories provide 'the working foundational generalization maps upon which our adult 'philosophies' and 'lifestyles' (and 'neurotic symptoms') are built'....
Indeed, in my own early life, I developed some skills toward 'map-making'. I do not remember this but a report from my father tells me that when I was about 5 years old, I stood up in front of a church congregation, my dad holding a globe and some kind of a pointer in front of him, and for every country in the world that he pointed at, I was able to deliver the 'name' of that country -- a feat that I couldn't come close to achieving today. The names of many of these countries have changed (and become more complicated), and any knowledge base of even their previous names has long disappeared into the deepest, unconcsious archives of my memory banks, or, more likely, the memory banks have disappeared out of my mind altogether...
Between 1974 and 1979, when I was studying psychology at The University of Waterloo, and studying different psychologists, I built my first map or model of the human psyche in my Honours Thesis essay. The essay was called 'Evaluation and Health' -- and today I would call the essay mainly a map or model of 'The Central Ego'.
After university, in 1980 and 81, I attended The Adlerian Institute of Ontario which influenced the direction of my thinking, and also, in 1979, I walked into The Gestalt Institue of Toronto for the first time and met Jorge Rosner in a short workshop on Markham Street, behind Honest Ed's. Shortly thereafter, The Gestalt Instute moved down to Cecil St where it stayed for more than 10 years during the 1980s and early 90s, before moving to its current address on Carlton Street.
I stepped in and out of The Gestalt Instute from about 1979 to 1991 on a sometimes regular, sometimes sporadic, basis, picking up the main ideas of Gestalt Therapy both inside The Institute, and in my own private research readings, as I moved along. It was through one of The Gestalt books that I was reading, The Gestalt Therapy Book, by Joel Latner, 1973, 1986, that I was re-exposed to both a particular idea by Carl Jung -- and as one of the main philosophical foundations underlying both Freudian and Jungian psychology -- G.W. Hegel.
Being a good theorist entails a number of different things -- good contact with your concrete, clinical data, an ability to generalize, associate, abstractify this data into a 'conceptual structural-dynamic theory-model-paradigm'. And not lose important elements of your clinical data in the process.
This is where a 'bi-polar, dualistic and dialectic model' -- like the 'particle-wave theory' in physics -- has a strong advantage over a 'one-sided, unilateral model'...
The dialectic model captures both ends of a bipolar spectrum of clinical facts, and everything in between the two polar ends, whereas as a one-sided, unilateral, either/or model will continually 'miss' the clinical facts that pertain to the opposite side of the unilateral theory that the unilateral theory does not cover. This is what happened essentially in Freud's traumacy theory, his seduction theory, his instinct theory, his childhood sexuality theory, his dream theory, his Oedipal theory, and his id theory -- in each case, important clinical data was left out of the theory when Freud kept trying to push and trumpet different specific 'unilateral, one-sided, either/or' theories... They all came up short because they were all one-sided...
There would have been much less dramatic infighting and outfighting regarding his slow abandonment of what we will call his 'Traumacy-Seduction Theory' after 1896 if Freud had simply compromised on both this combined theory and its opposite -- his later 'Instinct-Childhood Sexuality-Oedipal Theory'. Just like physicists would eventually do on the 'either/or' controversy between 'The Particle Theory' and 'The Wave Theory' of energy and matter -- what would eventually become 'Quantum Physics' -- which is a bipolar, dialectic theory.
Now, Freud's 'ego-id-superego' theory was, and still is, at least significantly a bipolar, dualistic-dialectic theory -- the 'bipolar ego often rushing down to the unconscious to defend against any rising, uncivil, unacceptable id drives'.
However, sometimes alternatively, the ego acts as 'compromising mediator' between the superego and the id -- and then we get what might be called 'id-ego-superego (or ISE) complexes' which sometime take the form of 'neurotic symptoms' and other times might be viewed as 'normal types of human behavior'...It depends upon the specifics of the particular ISE Complex and what its ramifications are both individually and socially.
In the former respect, the ego acts 'antagonistically and competively' against the id; whereas in the latter case scenario, the ego is working more 'co-operatively but compromisingly' with the id striving to 'channel' the id's desires into more socially acceptable avenues of behavior. The first type of ego vs. id behavior illustrates a 'Hegelian competitive thesis vs. anti-thesis model or paradigm' whereas the latter type of behavior on the part of the ego illustates a more 'co-operative, integrative' brand of the Hegelian 'triadic model' of 'thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis'.
Of course, there are times also, where the id might try to 'steamroll it desires, drives, demands past the ego which takes us back to the first 'competitive' brand of the Hegelian model (which can be traced back all the way to Anaximander's ancient Greek cosmic philosophy of 'bipolarities fighting against each other for dominance'. If I had my way about it, I would call Anaximander's theory 'The Teeter-Totter Principle' or 'The Balance Scales of Cosmic Justice Prinicple' or 'The Muskox Prinicple' (Have you ever seen two male muskoxen going at each other like battering rams to determine who gets to mate the female(s) -- the same principle obviously repeats itself over and over again in many, many different species, essentially Darwin's principle of 'survival of the fittest'...) or in more Nietzschean language, 'The Eternal Recuurence' of 'The Will to Power' in virtually every 'Competitive Bipolar Spectrum' in Life (and Death).
In the model of the psyche that I am still working on in the essay below, I have started from the simple triadic Freudian 'ego-id-supergo' model.
However, I have done much more 'splitting' conceptually within this model in a way that is supposed to 'reasonably accurately represent' what we do in our day to day lives....
Every model is an 'As If' model....You test it and see how well it works...and identify its 'negative side effects'.
Following along the concept of 'splitting' -- the focus of Freud's last paper before he died -- I have 'split' the 'upper zone' SUPEREGO into different 'nurturing' and 'critical' and 'hedonistic' and 'narcissistic' factions partly similar to the way first Object Relations did (Klein, Fairbairn, Guntrip, and all...), and then Transactional Analysis did (Eric Berne).
And likewise with the 'middle zone' EGO, I have 'split' it into 'private', 'central', and 'public' factions....
And then I have created -- in Transactional Analysis like style -- a whole new Psychoanalytic zone which I will call 'the UNDEREGO' -- which like the superego, can be 'split' into 'nurturing, hedonistic, narcissistic, and righteous components or compartements or 'underego states'....or alternatively, simply 'good' and 'bad' underego states as opposed to 'good' and 'bad' supergo states...such as what they initially did in Transactional Analysis' -- i.e., 'Good and Bad Mother Superego-Objects' as well as 'Good and Bad Father Superego-Objects', as well as in the underego department....' 'Good and Bad Self-Child-Objects' (i.e., the 'co-operative or compliant child-underego state' vs. 'the rebellious, righteous, hedonistic, narcissistic child-underego state'...)
If this all seems rather convoluted, overcomplicated, and unnecessary to you, I can say in my defense that the 'various bipolarities of clinical facts' justify this still evolving 'multi-bi-polar model', and every new model that we look at -- at first glance -- when we are used to working with one or more different models -- is likely to look foreign to you before you have had a chance to better understand it, try it on for size, and work with it to see if it gives you any 'additional clinical benefits' to the model that you may be currently working with...
Most of Freud's theories and essays -- when first advanced -- were usually 'radically rebelled against'..... including his seduction theory, his childhood sexuality theory, his Oedipal theory, his life and death instinct theory, and so on...
I expect no different with the advancement of the model that I am working on below, which although much more complicated than Freud's simple triadic model, contains a lot of additional 'clinical benefits' and 'less negative clinical side effects' than Freud's partly 'anachronistic' model...
One of the problems that Freud had trouble with after writing The Ego and The Id (1923), was that he basically turned 'the unconscious' into 'the id' although he did concede that both the ego and the superego had 'unconscious components'...
Still, after reading this essay, and getting Freud's definition of 'the id', we have to determine ourselves whether or not Freud may have left out other significant dimensisons of the unconscious in this 1923 model. For example, there was no talk about 'traumctic memories' any more or even 'memories' at all. Where do they fit into Freud's 1923 scheme of things? How do they fit into Freud's new concept of 'the id'? These are some of the questions that I do battle with below...
The paper is sitll not completely finished...I hope to have it finished by the end of this weekend...dgb, April 14th, 2012
...................................................................................................................
Still in process...under renovation...April 14th, 2012
The psychoanalyst -- and indeed, any good working psychotherapist -- has an array of 'theoretical and therapeutic tools' at his or her disposal to help 'enlighten you' on what kinds of things you are hiding from the world, and/or hiding from youself.
Whatever can be traced forward can also be traced backwards, and visa versa. Our therapist comes to 'the first scene of our crime' -- usually our 'neurotic symptoms' which we will describe as making up our 'existential, here-and-now, crime or pathology scene' -- and from the 'here-and-now' neurotic symptoms that exist within the context of our existential pathology scene, the therapist -- or at least the psychoanalytically, traumacy, intstinct, and/or transference trained therapist, starts to trace these symptoms back through our individual history to their 'infancy', the most definitive ones usually, but not always, stemming from our early childhood past.
At first Freud -- in conjunction with Breuer, and infuenced also by the likes of Charcot, Bernheim, and Janet -- developed a simple formula called 'traumacy theory' in which neurotic symptoms were traced back through the individual's personal history to a point at which they came to a 'physical' and/or 'psychic' traumacy that 'fit' the nature -- the 'structure' and the 'dynamics' -- of the particular neurotic symptoms.
The term 'neurotic' is used here to mean 'pathological', 'extreme', 'radical', 'bizarre, 'misguided', 'unusual', 'dysfunctional' -- and the likes -- based partly on the experience and judgment of the therapist, often partly on our own individual wisht to 'be rid' of these particular symptoms because we, ourselves, see them as being 'dysfunctional' in our lives, but of course not always -- therapist and client could/can be very much at odds with each other as to what constitutes 'functional' vs. 'dysfunctional', 'pathological' vs. 'normal', 'balanced' vs. 'unbalanced', 'healthy' vs. 'unhealthy' thoughts, feelings, impulses, restraints, behavior....
Indeed, one of the first things that a therapist and a client need to do is to find out if they are on the same page as to what exactly they are going to try to 'change' or 'modify' during the therapeutic process....
Aside from this, we all have a whole arsenal of 'defense mechanisms' that we use every day to both 'hide' and 'allude' to 'our inner core of psychic being' -- to who we really are, i.e., our 'naked psychic beings'.
What is our 'naked psychic being'? Our 'core essence'?
Well, for argument's sake, let start with a concept that I have developed over time -- partly from reading the post-Freudian psychoanalytic literature -- 'The Central Ego'.
Now, as psycho-theorists, we can distinguish between two types of psychic concepts: 1. 'pscyho-structrual' concepts; and 2. 'psycho-dynamic' concepts. Both are 'metaphysical' concepts meaning 'above and beyond physics'. They have no 'empirical basis or foundation', these are 'invisible' concepts, they are 'as if' concepts, meaning that we 'can't see' them but let us 'use them anyway' because they may help us to better understand the many similarities, variances, and 'vissicitudes' of the personality -- as if they are 'empircally true' even though we cannot see the 'physical existence' of these concepts.
To contrast, if we are studying the 'phsycial anatomy' of the body -- which includes 'the brain' -- we can 'dissect' the body and/or brain and find actual 'physical structures' that visibly reflect the 'anatomical concepts' that we are using to describe these 'physical structures'. We can open up the 'chest cavity' of a human being and find the phsycial structures of a 'heart', a 'liver', and so on...
We can open up a brain and find a 'thalamus' and a 'hypothalamus'. But physically and anatomically speaking, we will never be able to open up a brain and find a 'Central Ego'. Nor an 'id'. Nor a 'superego'. These can be classified as 'psychic, metaphysical structures and/or concepts' that we basically 'assume' or 'theorize' to exist in order to help us better understand and/or teach 'how the mind (as opposed to the brain) works', which is often referred to as -- 'personality theory' as opposed to 'neurological and/or brain theory' that has actual empirical structures and substances that we can visually see and base our theory on.
No such luck in personality theory. Which is why the 'behaviorists' decided to scrap personality theory altogether. Their brand of 'personality theory' amounts to 'stimulus' and 'response' with a 'black box' in the middle which concedes the existence of our 'mind-brain' but which does not give our mind-brain too much credit, significance and respect in terms of determining our final 'behavioral outcome' or 'behavioral response'.
When I wrote my Honours Thesis in psychology in 1979, my professor -- Dr. Donald Meichenbaum -- had just written a book that integrated 'cognitive theory and therapy' with 'behavioral theory and therapy' which was more amenable to me because we had a mutual interest in 'General Semantics' as a form of 'Language and Cognitive Theory/Therapy'.
I was -- and sitll am -- more interested in Francis Bacon, John Locke, Kant, Wittgenstein, Korzybski, Hayakawa, Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, George Kelley, and the like, as opposed to Pavlov and B.F. Skinner (not that there weren't important lessons to be derived from the work of Pavlov and Skinner -- oftentimes, it is much faster and more effective to 'act your way to new thoughts and feelings', than it is to 'think and feel your way to new actions'.)
So getting back to the 'essence of our naked psychic being, our core essence' -- how do we derive this aspect of ourselves from our postulated 'Central Ego'.
At this point, I introduce two more concepts that show a partial Jungian influence, but they step outside of both Jungian Theory and Freudian Theory.
Let us assume that 'Our Central Ego' is sandwiched around two bipolar 'psycho-structures' -- 1. 'Our Public Ego'; and 2. 'Our Private Ego'.
Now we have three psychic-structures that belong to what I will refer to as our 'Conscious Cognitive Domain (CCD)' or 'Conscious Cognitive System (CCS)'.
These concepts -- and their short forms -- are partly, but not completely, derived from Freud's work from 1900 (The Interpretation of Dreams) to 1915 (The Unconscious).
Now I introduce my second set of 'bipolar concepts' and second 'Bipolar System' (BPS). The first was the 'private ego' vs. the 'public ego', and now we have 'Our Conscious Cognitve System (Our CCS)' vs. 'Our Unconscious Cognitive System (Our UCS)'. Let us say that whatever we view as being 'no longer important to our CCS', we 'archive' to our UCS. Plus there are some psychic elements of our UCS that may not have reached our CCS yet -- nor may never.
At this point, I break further ground from Freud -- as a 'post-Hegelian, dialectic theorist' as opposed to an 'Aristolean, either/or theorist'. Most of us who have seriously read Freud know that Freud started to seriously modify and/or abandon his 'traumacy-seduction theory' (1893-1896) after the spring of 1896 in favor of his much more 'biological instinct theory' that gained ground after 1900 and culminated in his 1923 classic essay, 'The Ego and The Id'.
Thus, by 1923, Freud's previous terminology of 'The Unconscious' or 'The Ucs' (1900 to 1923) mutated mainly into Freud's classic concept of 'The Id' in 1923.
Freud conceded that there were elements of 'The Ego' and 'The Superego' that were also 'unconscious' but primarily, 'The Domain of The Unconscious' in 1923 became 'The Domain of The Id'.
Now, this new terminology -- the id, the ego, and the superego -- helped to clear up some previous ambiguities relative to Freud's distinction between the 'conscious', 'preconscious', and 'unconscious' personality but it also created some new ambiguities and some new conceptual classification problems.
Understanding that Freud was partly an 'Aristolean, Either/Or Theorist' and partly a 'Hegelian Dualistic and Dialectic Theorist' by 1923, meaning firstly, that Freud had largely if not fully replaced his early (1903-1906) 'Traumatic Memory Theory' with his new, 1923 'Id-Ego-Superego Theory' which in turn was a 'Dualistic and Dialectic, Biological Instinct and Precursory Object Relations Theory' -- all of this allows us to come to a series of inferential conclusions, such as:
1. Freud's 1903-1906 'Traumatic Memory Theory, Formula, and Paradigm' was largely gone, the way of the do-do bird, or at least largely invisible -- in his newest (1923) Biological Instinct-Object Relations Personality Theory, Formula, and Paradigm;
2. 'The Id' -- translated as 'The It' in English -- was being viewed by Freud largely, if not totally, as an 'Unconcious Psychic or Cognitive Domain' of 'Dissociation and/or Repression' consisting of largely contradictory and uncivil instinctual impulses (life vs. death, pleasure vs. reality, sex vs. aggressive, impulses) that couldn't, or wouldn't, be 'acceptable' to the ego and superego unless or until these impulses were 'cloaked, hidden, and/or modified' into more ego-acceptable and socially acceptable forms of impulses and behaviors;
3. Although parts of the ego and superego were viewed by Freud in 1923 as belonging to the domain of the unconscious, as well as the id -- in its entirety -- one is left with at least this one question: 'Where do we find in this classification system -- our 'memories', and particularly our 'traumatic memories', or do they even have a place in 'Classical Freudian Psychoanalysis' anymore?' To which I reply that it looks to me like they have been more or less eliminated, minimized, and/or even 'dissociated' from Freud's newest 1923 'Triadic Personality Theory (TPT)';
4. What are we to make of Freud's 1923 TPT that more or less 'eliminates' the signifiance of memories, and particularly traumatic memories, as well as even having a 'rightful home' in our UCS for our 'Transference Templates'?;
To which I have countered Freud's 1923 TPT Paradigm by adding the concept of 'The Memory-Learning-Transference (MLT) Archives and Templates'....which creates another conceptual classifcation problem, specifically -- Do we include our MLT Archives and Templates within the confines of 'The Id' -- or not? And if not within the id, then where? Within the unconscious ego? Or the unconscious superego? Or all three of the above? Certainly, our MLT templates contain all three of id, ego, and superego elements....
Thus, the conceptual answer to this problem, from my perspective, involve a UCS that contains all three structural-dynamic psychic divisions of the id, ego, and superego contributing to the existence of our MLT archives and templates as well as being dialectically influenced by these same MLT archives and temlates, and sometimes, oftentimes, even 'taking them up' to our CCS... To finish on this point, the model I envision of our UCS includes our id, ego, and superego all surrounding our MLT archives and templates, and dialectically influencing and being influenced by them...
Is there any other elements of our UCS that Freud left out in his 1923 TPT model of the personality?
Well, let's assume that the id, the ego, and the superego all play different roles and functions in our UCS as well as our CCS and that all three dimensions of our unconscious personality have to pass through our MLT Archives and Templates on their way up to our CCS or on their way down through our UCS.
As presented in the question above, we have to decide whether there are any other important elements of our UCS that still need to be classified, and if so, can we classify them within the four UCS compartments labelled so far -- ie., our id, ego, superego, and MLT Archives and Templates? Or do we have to step outside these four UCS personality compartments and create any new UCS compartments?
Well, I have been using -- or at least developing -- four other UCS compartments other than the four that I have just mentioned. However, I am comfortable -- although I am pretty sure that many psychoanalysts may not be -- to include these last four UCS compartments as a part of 'the id'. They are, topographically from 'deepest down' in the UCS to 'higher up' in the UCS before we get to The MLT Archives and Templates -- in fact, I will now list off all of the conceptualized UCS compartments that I will be using:
1. Our Genetic, Constitutional (Id-Ego) Self;
2. Our Chaotic, Completely Disorganized, Id (Apeiron-Abyss);
3. Our Genetic, Primal, Mythological Archetypes and Picture-Symbol Archives and Templates;
4. Our Differentiating, Partly Organized, Pre-MLT, Id;
5. Our MLT Archives and Templates;
6. Our More Fully Organized, Post-MLT, Shadow-Id-Ego-Vault-Enclosure (The SIEVE) -- which now includes 'traumatic transference complexes', 'narcissistic fixation complexes', and 'id-ego-impulse-defense complexes';
7. Our UCS Underego and Superego (Childhood Object Relations) Compartments as well as our UCS Central Ego -- with our UCS Central Ego functioning as our 'Dream, Nightmare, and Fantasy Weaver';
And now the CCS compartments that I will be using:
08. Our Righteous (Apollonian) Underego;
09. Our Narcissistic Underego;
10. Our Hedonistic (Dionysian) Underego;
11. Our Nurturing (Co-operative-Compliant) Underego;
12. Our Private Ego;
13. Our Central (Mediating, Executive) Ego;
14. Our Public Ego;
15. Our Nurturing-Supportive Superego;
16. Our Hedonistic (Dionysian) Superego;
17. Our Narcissistic Superego;
18. Our Righteous (Apollonian) Superego;
The 'Underego-Superego Compartments' of this post-Freudian, DGB integrative-psychoanalytic model represent the 'Object Relations' portion of the model.
When 'Shadow-Id-Ego-Vault-Enclosure Complexes' (or 'SIEVE Complexes' -- sorry, but I have wanted to use this acronym for quite a while now and had to use a lot of words to get to it) are 'released' or 'escape' from our SIEVE, these complexes -- which are like metaphysically like 'Immune System Complexes' in our 'physiological, biochemical world' -- travel northward up towards 'abreactive-cathartic release' in our CCS through 'Underego' and 'Superego' compartments, into our Private Ego, then our Central Ego, and then -- if released -- into Public Ego, and outside into the public airwaves.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what our family, our friends, our co-workers, our lovers, our enemies, our therapists...all have to deal with -- i.e., our 'cognitive-emotional-behavioral id-ego, impulse-defense complexes' that are generally partly, sometimes entirely, 'cathartically released' and/or alternatively 'uncathartically restrained and/or lightly or heavily defended against' once they reach the 'open public airwaves'...or not....that tell people who we are...or not...
Our 'serial behavioral symptoms' and particularly our 'serial neurotic symptoms' are the 'signposts' -- 'mnemic symbols' I believe Freud used to call them -- that both 'hide' and 'allude to' the underlying, teeter-totter, psycho-dynamics of our 'UCS personality' -- allusions to our 'transference-existential immediacy', allusions to our 'core, nuclear, psychic essence', allusions to our 'much more naked psychic self'.
But of course, you have to become better and better at deciphering the 'impulse-defense language (IDL)' -- the 'transference-existential language (TEL)' -- without breaking the 'therapist-client empathic trust bond' in order to get to anyone's underlying psychic essence, including our own, assuming we don't want to scare our client away, or scare ourselves away.
The three most terrifying parts of our Id, our Shadow-Id, and our MLT Templates are probably:
1. Our Chaotic, Completely Disorganized, Abyss-Id;
2. Our Uncivil, Organized Id;
3. Our Core, Nuclear Psychic Trauma Memories and Complexes.
Have a great evening on this fine Easter Monday....everyone!
-- dgb, April 9th, 2012...
-- David Gordon Bain...
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Creations...
-- Are Still in Process....
