This is the first of many forecasted editorial commentaries on Freud's always evolving psychological essays and theories from 1892 to 1939.
Now, to a greater or lesser extent, this path has been 'beaten down' by hundreds if not thousands of Freudian commentators before me. You have the 'main beaten path', and then you have a few commentators deviating from this 'main beaten path' to some greater or lesser extent.
Well, I want to go down a relatively unbeaten path (or perhaps an unbeaten path off a beaten path) examining in particular Freud's earliest psychology papers between 1892 and 1897 and find out for myself whether Freud might not have done a better job integrating his early evolving 'reality-sexual abuse-trauma-repressed-memory-return of the repressed through the symptom' theory with his later evolving 'instinct and fantasy' theory, as opposed to declaring them 'mutually exclusive' and stating that his pre-1897 reality-trauma-seduction work was basically a 'mistake', or a 'misinterpretation' of what was really happening, and had to be 'replaced' by his post-1896 evolving 'repressed-instinct/impulse-desire/drive-fantasy-Oedipal' theory.
Being the 'post-Hegelian, dialectic logic, thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis' philosopher that I am, and bringing this Hegelian paradigm perspective into my thinking about Psychoanalysis, I basically look at The International Psychoanalytic Establishment and Jeffrey Masson as having 'landed at two opposite ends of the same dialectically bipolar and potentially integrative spectrum', Masson having supported Freud's early reality-trauma-seduction theory whereas The International Psychoanalytic Establishment -- in maintaining consistency with Freud's interpretation and evaluation of the situation -- chose to, and basically still chooses to, support Freud's later evolving instinct-fantasy-Oedipal theory.
Both positions, in my opinion, need to be 'reconciled' and 'synthesized' in the middle such that the second wave of Freudian theories (instinct/impulse-desire-drive-fantasy-Oedipal) needs to rest on the foundation of the first wave of Freudian theories (reality-memory-trauma-seduction).
Now, in their own way, to what I can see from the information coming out of The Psychoanalytic Institute that I am closest to these days (The Toronto Psychoanalytic Institute'), Psychoanalysis does seem to be very focused on the same basic goal that I just mentioned above -- specifically, examining different 'brands' of existing trauma theory in Psychoanalysis today, coming mainly out of Object Relations, Self Psychology, and Attachment Theory -- but no one that I can see is going back to the origin of Freud's earliest trauma theory between 1892 and 1895.
This being the case, I will take on this job of 'integrating' the two opposing 1. 'Pre-Classical'; and 2. 'Classical' theoretical positions into one combined 'bipolar theory'. .
We start in 1892.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Essay 8: Re-Working Freud's Ego, Id, and Superego Theory (Part 3): Integrating Trauma Theory and Fantasy Theory; Classical Psychoanalysis and Object Relations
Updated April 20th, 2014
I was starting to read 'An Outline of Psychoanalysis' (1938) the other day -- and there it was, or at least the essence of it -- a concept and label that I have been 'playing around' with for a while now -- the concept of 'id-ego' or 'ego-id' (Freud used the latter on page 149 of V. 23 of Strachey's Standard Edition, Chapter 2, 'The Theory Of The Instincts').
Wrote Freud in his last essay, a year before he died,
'We may picture an initial state as one in which the total available energy of Eros which henceforward we shall speak of as 'libido' is present in the still undifferentiated ego-id and serves to neutralize the destructive tendencies which are simultaneously present.' (p.149-150).
Well, far be it for me to challenge but I am going to do it anyway (not unlike thousands of critics or 'reformers' before me).
Who says that the id-ego ever differentiates itself the way Freud claims it does -- and in effect, locks itself in a deep, unconscious chamber, or is locked down there by the evolving ego and superego, and only let's itself be known by its 'instincts and their vicissitudes'.
Just for a minute, let us entertain the idea that the id-ego is capable of doing exactly the same thing that both the superego and ego are capable of doing -- specifically, moving up and down through different degrees of consciousness from unconscious to preconscious, to conscious elements of the Self.
Thus, we could and can differentiate between a thinking, feeling, wanting, driving, unconscious id-ego, pre-conscious id-ego, and conscious id-ego.
Most importantly, that does two different things: one, it puts the id-ego in the same light (and darkness) as the ego and superego. And two, it brings the 'id-ego' into the confines of 'The Wholistic Ego or Self' -- in other words, it doesn't separate the id from the ego like it is some 'alien from Mars' (even if it may seem or feel that way sometimes).
In even different words, if we imagine and subscribe to Freud's conceptual assumption that the id is the 'primal uncivilized ego at birth and through our earliest development when we don't have any idea what is 'socially appropriate' and what is 'socially inappropriate' and in need of 'self-censorship' -- until the internalization (introjection) of greater and greater socialization teaches us to create a 'split within ourselves' that separates our 'undifferentiated, primal, uncivilized, unsocialized id-ego or ego-id' from our evolving, more 'civilized and/or socialized ego' that 1. helps us to better meet 'social and cultural expectations'; and 2. creates a 'barrier' or 'shield' between our more primitive, uncivilized id-ego and our more socialized 'restraining reality-ego'. Finally, we might entertain -- at least I am -- the addition of one more 'ego-split' in this immediate context here and that is 'The Central Mediating (and 'Symptom-Forming') which negotiates 'solutions' between the more primal, uncivilized demands of our id-ego and our more 'restraining impulses of our reality-ego' which is taken to another level of 'splitting' in our 'Ego-Ideal' and 'Superego'.
Now, depending on how conservative or 'anally stringent' you want to be, this re-working of Freud's Classical Psychoanalysis Personality Theory is not that great a stretch upwards and outwards.
I mean think about it. In his last paper, An Outline of Psychoanalysis (1938), Freud describes the 'undifferentiated ego-id' (before the id and the ego 'split' and each become what Freud ultimately defined and described them as).
Well, this is a far cry from Freud's 1923 definition and description of the id as a 'reservoir' or 'cauldron' containing the 'life' and 'death' instincts....that at different times 'escape' or are 'released' from the restricting confines of the id, and start 'free-floating' as 'vicissitudes of the id' up towards the pre-conscious and conscious personality, and eventually present themselves as 'neurotically and/or psychotically (or in dream-fashion)' as 'unconscious symptoms' in the surface psycho-dynamics of the personality.
We have to synchronize what Freud was writing in 1923 with what he was writing in 1938, just before he died. I concur with Harry Guntrip (1971, 1973, Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and The Self) when Guntrip said that Freud was just starting to become more of a serious Object Relations theorist in 1938 before he died in 1939.
The two essays he wrote in 1938 -- 'Splitting of The Ego in The Process of Defense'; and the already mentioned 'An Outline of Psychoanalysis' were certainly heading in a Object Relations direction, although 'Splitting' seemed like a 'tidbit' of an Object Relations paper stuck inside a very Victorian, Freudian, Classical Psychoanalysis paper. Specifically, in the last part of 'Splitting', Freud came back to -- what I would call his largely outdated concept of 'castration anxiety' to explain the client's creation of a 'fetish' to presumably ward off the castration anxiety somehow. Today, I think there would be easier, less convoluted ways of explaining the fetish -- like 'performance anxiety' as opposed to 'castration anxiety'.
In this view, from a client of this type's perspective, 'all women' become viewed as 'hostile, rejecting objects/figures/persons' that/who take away his ability to perform.
Thus, instead, he chooses a 'non-judging fetish object' to 'excite' him without 'having to deal with the projected and/or real negative judgments of the imagined or real 'hostile, critical woman' that he doesn't want to engage with ('castration anxiety' which should probably be viewed as a Victorian-relevant label for what we might now call 'performance-rejection anxiety' and the 'unbearable idea' attached to it -- specifically, something like this: If I do not perform properly, then I am something less than a 'real man' which fits with Adler's idea of 'the masculine protest' -- some men and women will go to great lengths to avoid such a 'masculinity-threatening' or 'feminine-threatening performance challenge').
In the first part of 'Splitting', Freud was coming back to one of his earliest ideas (1893, 1894) -- or rather Janet's which Freud undoubtedly perceived the need to differentiate himself from.
Indeed, Freud found a way with his concept of 'repression' -- and the idea of let us say a 'vertical splitting of consciousness from unconsciousness' (which would eventually become 'the splitting of the ego from the id' in 1923) as opposed to Janet's early idea of a 'splitting of consciousness' which is more of a precursor to an Object Relations type of model and suggests the visualization of a 'horizontal splitting of consciousness or the ego' into -- let us say -- 'the ego' and 'the alter-ego' -- like in the 'Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' which had been written by Robert Louis Stevenson in 1886 -- and was an idea followed up by Janet around 1892 just as Freud was starting to enter the 'clinical psychology and psychotherapy' picture.
What we are interested in here, is the synthesis of not only Freud's early trauma theory with his later fantasy theory, but also with the synthesis between Classical Psychoanalysis with Object Relations and Self Psychology, is the idea of 'the ego-id' (or 'id-ego) being a thinking, feeling, wanting, impulsively driving 'primal ego-state' that is with us from the day we are born to the day we die (but tends to 'go under cover' for much our life because of its 'uncivil, primal nature').
Call the id-ego not only our primal ego but also our primary ego until socialization and our 'cerebral cortex' starts to take over the more complex tasks of what Freud called our 'secondary process'. The cerebral cortex, and particularly within the cerebral cortex, the pre-frontal cortex (one of four regions of this area of the brain) is that part of our brain that, from a psychological and psychoanalytic perspective, we are calling 'The Reality Ego' and or 'The Central Mediating and Executive Ego' -- that part our mind-brain that deals with reality in whatever manner we choose to deal with it.
Topographically, the type of model I am using is much more 'compartment-laden' than Freud's easy to remember 'id-ego-superego' model, or Gestalt Therapy's 'topdog-underdog' model. Rather, it looks more like Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis model (which was built partly from an Object Relations model). From top to bottom, the DGB Multi-Integrative (Quantum) Psychoanalytic and Neo-Psychoanalytic model looks presently like this:
A/ Superego Compartments
1. The Nurturing-Unconditional Attachment Ego-Ideal and Superego;
2. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic (Pleasure-Seeking) Ego-Ideal and Superego;
3. The Righteous-Critical-Conditional Attachment Ego-Ideal and Superego;
B/ Ego Compartments
4. The Private-Shadow Ego;
5. The Central Mediating and Executive Ego;
6. The Reality Ego and Public Persona;
C/ Underego Compartments
7. The Nurturing-Unconditional Attachment Underego;
8. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic (Pleasure-Seeking) Underego;
9. The Righteous-Critical-Conditional Attachment Underego;
D/ Subsidiary Conscious, Pre-Conscious, and Unconscious Psycho-Dynamic and/or Defense-Mechanism, Ego Compartments
10. The Feeling Ego and Phenomenology of Spirit;
11. The Body Ego;
12. The Dream and Fantasy Ego;
13. The Transference Ego;
14. The Identification and Introjection Ego;
15. The Projection Ego;
16. The Sublimation Ego;
17. The Displacement Ego;
18. The Reaction-Formation Ego;
19. The 'Manic', 'Anal-OCD' and/or 'Oral-Genital Addiction' Ego-Compartment
20. The Paranoid-Schizoid (Distancing/Dissociative) and/or Borderline Personality Ego-Compartment;
21. The Depressive Personality Ego;
22. The Ambivalent, Bipolar Ego;
E/ Pre-Conscious and Unconscious Ego Processes
23. The Screening Ego and Symptom Converter
24. 'Free-Floating' Id and Transference Complexes;
25. The Id and Transference Vault;
26. The Experience-Memory-Learning-Transference (EMLT) Templates;
27. The Unconscious Id-Ego;
28. The Abyss-Ledge;
29. The Abyss;
30. The Genetic Potential Self.
-- dgb, April 28th, 2014...
-- David Gordon Bain...
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Creations...
-- Are Still in Process
I was starting to read 'An Outline of Psychoanalysis' (1938) the other day -- and there it was, or at least the essence of it -- a concept and label that I have been 'playing around' with for a while now -- the concept of 'id-ego' or 'ego-id' (Freud used the latter on page 149 of V. 23 of Strachey's Standard Edition, Chapter 2, 'The Theory Of The Instincts').
Wrote Freud in his last essay, a year before he died,
'We may picture an initial state as one in which the total available energy of Eros which henceforward we shall speak of as 'libido' is present in the still undifferentiated ego-id and serves to neutralize the destructive tendencies which are simultaneously present.' (p.149-150).
Well, far be it for me to challenge but I am going to do it anyway (not unlike thousands of critics or 'reformers' before me).
Who says that the id-ego ever differentiates itself the way Freud claims it does -- and in effect, locks itself in a deep, unconscious chamber, or is locked down there by the evolving ego and superego, and only let's itself be known by its 'instincts and their vicissitudes'.
Just for a minute, let us entertain the idea that the id-ego is capable of doing exactly the same thing that both the superego and ego are capable of doing -- specifically, moving up and down through different degrees of consciousness from unconscious to preconscious, to conscious elements of the Self.
Thus, we could and can differentiate between a thinking, feeling, wanting, driving, unconscious id-ego, pre-conscious id-ego, and conscious id-ego.
Most importantly, that does two different things: one, it puts the id-ego in the same light (and darkness) as the ego and superego. And two, it brings the 'id-ego' into the confines of 'The Wholistic Ego or Self' -- in other words, it doesn't separate the id from the ego like it is some 'alien from Mars' (even if it may seem or feel that way sometimes).
In even different words, if we imagine and subscribe to Freud's conceptual assumption that the id is the 'primal uncivilized ego at birth and through our earliest development when we don't have any idea what is 'socially appropriate' and what is 'socially inappropriate' and in need of 'self-censorship' -- until the internalization (introjection) of greater and greater socialization teaches us to create a 'split within ourselves' that separates our 'undifferentiated, primal, uncivilized, unsocialized id-ego or ego-id' from our evolving, more 'civilized and/or socialized ego' that 1. helps us to better meet 'social and cultural expectations'; and 2. creates a 'barrier' or 'shield' between our more primitive, uncivilized id-ego and our more socialized 'restraining reality-ego'. Finally, we might entertain -- at least I am -- the addition of one more 'ego-split' in this immediate context here and that is 'The Central Mediating (and 'Symptom-Forming') which negotiates 'solutions' between the more primal, uncivilized demands of our id-ego and our more 'restraining impulses of our reality-ego' which is taken to another level of 'splitting' in our 'Ego-Ideal' and 'Superego'.
Now, depending on how conservative or 'anally stringent' you want to be, this re-working of Freud's Classical Psychoanalysis Personality Theory is not that great a stretch upwards and outwards.
I mean think about it. In his last paper, An Outline of Psychoanalysis (1938), Freud describes the 'undifferentiated ego-id' (before the id and the ego 'split' and each become what Freud ultimately defined and described them as).
Well, this is a far cry from Freud's 1923 definition and description of the id as a 'reservoir' or 'cauldron' containing the 'life' and 'death' instincts....that at different times 'escape' or are 'released' from the restricting confines of the id, and start 'free-floating' as 'vicissitudes of the id' up towards the pre-conscious and conscious personality, and eventually present themselves as 'neurotically and/or psychotically (or in dream-fashion)' as 'unconscious symptoms' in the surface psycho-dynamics of the personality.
We have to synchronize what Freud was writing in 1923 with what he was writing in 1938, just before he died. I concur with Harry Guntrip (1971, 1973, Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and The Self) when Guntrip said that Freud was just starting to become more of a serious Object Relations theorist in 1938 before he died in 1939.
The two essays he wrote in 1938 -- 'Splitting of The Ego in The Process of Defense'; and the already mentioned 'An Outline of Psychoanalysis' were certainly heading in a Object Relations direction, although 'Splitting' seemed like a 'tidbit' of an Object Relations paper stuck inside a very Victorian, Freudian, Classical Psychoanalysis paper. Specifically, in the last part of 'Splitting', Freud came back to -- what I would call his largely outdated concept of 'castration anxiety' to explain the client's creation of a 'fetish' to presumably ward off the castration anxiety somehow. Today, I think there would be easier, less convoluted ways of explaining the fetish -- like 'performance anxiety' as opposed to 'castration anxiety'.
In this view, from a client of this type's perspective, 'all women' become viewed as 'hostile, rejecting objects/figures/persons' that/who take away his ability to perform.
Thus, instead, he chooses a 'non-judging fetish object' to 'excite' him without 'having to deal with the projected and/or real negative judgments of the imagined or real 'hostile, critical woman' that he doesn't want to engage with ('castration anxiety' which should probably be viewed as a Victorian-relevant label for what we might now call 'performance-rejection anxiety' and the 'unbearable idea' attached to it -- specifically, something like this: If I do not perform properly, then I am something less than a 'real man' which fits with Adler's idea of 'the masculine protest' -- some men and women will go to great lengths to avoid such a 'masculinity-threatening' or 'feminine-threatening performance challenge').
In the first part of 'Splitting', Freud was coming back to one of his earliest ideas (1893, 1894) -- or rather Janet's which Freud undoubtedly perceived the need to differentiate himself from.
Indeed, Freud found a way with his concept of 'repression' -- and the idea of let us say a 'vertical splitting of consciousness from unconsciousness' (which would eventually become 'the splitting of the ego from the id' in 1923) as opposed to Janet's early idea of a 'splitting of consciousness' which is more of a precursor to an Object Relations type of model and suggests the visualization of a 'horizontal splitting of consciousness or the ego' into -- let us say -- 'the ego' and 'the alter-ego' -- like in the 'Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' which had been written by Robert Louis Stevenson in 1886 -- and was an idea followed up by Janet around 1892 just as Freud was starting to enter the 'clinical psychology and psychotherapy' picture.
What we are interested in here, is the synthesis of not only Freud's early trauma theory with his later fantasy theory, but also with the synthesis between Classical Psychoanalysis with Object Relations and Self Psychology, is the idea of 'the ego-id' (or 'id-ego) being a thinking, feeling, wanting, impulsively driving 'primal ego-state' that is with us from the day we are born to the day we die (but tends to 'go under cover' for much our life because of its 'uncivil, primal nature').
Call the id-ego not only our primal ego but also our primary ego until socialization and our 'cerebral cortex' starts to take over the more complex tasks of what Freud called our 'secondary process'. The cerebral cortex, and particularly within the cerebral cortex, the pre-frontal cortex (one of four regions of this area of the brain) is that part of our brain that, from a psychological and psychoanalytic perspective, we are calling 'The Reality Ego' and or 'The Central Mediating and Executive Ego' -- that part our mind-brain that deals with reality in whatever manner we choose to deal with it.
Topographically, the type of model I am using is much more 'compartment-laden' than Freud's easy to remember 'id-ego-superego' model, or Gestalt Therapy's 'topdog-underdog' model. Rather, it looks more like Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis model (which was built partly from an Object Relations model). From top to bottom, the DGB Multi-Integrative (Quantum) Psychoanalytic and Neo-Psychoanalytic model looks presently like this:
A/ Superego Compartments
1. The Nurturing-Unconditional Attachment Ego-Ideal and Superego;
2. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic (Pleasure-Seeking) Ego-Ideal and Superego;
3. The Righteous-Critical-Conditional Attachment Ego-Ideal and Superego;
B/ Ego Compartments
4. The Private-Shadow Ego;
5. The Central Mediating and Executive Ego;
6. The Reality Ego and Public Persona;
C/ Underego Compartments
7. The Nurturing-Unconditional Attachment Underego;
8. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic (Pleasure-Seeking) Underego;
9. The Righteous-Critical-Conditional Attachment Underego;
D/ Subsidiary Conscious, Pre-Conscious, and Unconscious Psycho-Dynamic and/or Defense-Mechanism, Ego Compartments
10. The Feeling Ego and Phenomenology of Spirit;
11. The Body Ego;
12. The Dream and Fantasy Ego;
13. The Transference Ego;
14. The Identification and Introjection Ego;
15. The Projection Ego;
16. The Sublimation Ego;
17. The Displacement Ego;
18. The Reaction-Formation Ego;
19. The 'Manic', 'Anal-OCD' and/or 'Oral-Genital Addiction' Ego-Compartment
20. The Paranoid-Schizoid (Distancing/Dissociative) and/or Borderline Personality Ego-Compartment;
21. The Depressive Personality Ego;
22. The Ambivalent, Bipolar Ego;
E/ Pre-Conscious and Unconscious Ego Processes
23. The Screening Ego and Symptom Converter
24. 'Free-Floating' Id and Transference Complexes;
25. The Id and Transference Vault;
26. The Experience-Memory-Learning-Transference (EMLT) Templates;
27. The Unconscious Id-Ego;
28. The Abyss-Ledge;
29. The Abyss;
30. The Genetic Potential Self.
-- dgb, April 28th, 2014...
-- David Gordon Bain...
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Creations...
-- Are Still in Process
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Essay 7: Re-Working Freud's Ego, Id, and Superego Theory (Part 2)
One thing that I have come to understand when I am reading Freud: Specifically, never underestimate him. Love him, hate him -- but never underestimate him. Because whenever I think that I have something spectacularly new to add to Freudian theory, I find that in one shape or form, Freud has usually and/or in essence -- been there first.
I want to be clear that even in my most critical moments of taking Freud to task for something that he has written or not written, done or not done, I am not some kind of anti-Freudian who wants to put Classical Psychoanalysis on the shelf -- permanently -- and/or into some Vienna and/or London museum -- with all psychoanalysts under the strict order to cease practicing it.
Sure I want to reformulate Freudian theory, revise it, and integrate it with other brands of Psychoanalysis and Neo-Psychoanalysis. However, first and foremost, I want to take everything inside of Strachey's 24 Volume Standard Edition of Sigmund Freud's Complete Works -- and I want this to be my main arena or work forum for my reformation of Classical Psychoanalysis into what I will call a 'Multi-Integrative-Dialectic (MID) Psychoanalysis and Neo-Psychoanalysis'.
Be clear that all schools of 'neo-psychoanalysis' were originally created by theorist and therapists who were originally 'psychoanalysts' and belonged to psychoanalysis -- so it is not a far stretch to say that if Freud had not been so 'anal-retentive' and 'anal-righteous' relative to all (male) psychoanalysts belonging to his 'secret society' and subscribing to only his perceived, core, essential ideas and assumptions/presumptions relative to the evolution of psychoanalysis, well, today psychoanalysis would probably own an almost complete monopoly of all schools of psychology and psychotherapy (except for perhaps behavior theory and therapy).
The other name that I have been using in one form or another, longer or shorter version, is 'GAP-DGB Quantum Psychoanalysis'. Both names I have been using at different times for quite a while now.
The name 'GAP' has two connotations. One it is an acronym standing for 'Gestalt-Adlerian-Psychoanalysis'. And two, the idea of 'gaps' in memory was with Freud almost from day one -- the idea of 'making the unconscious, conscious' to the client, and thus filling in the client's 'gap in memory', or his or her 'functional amnesia' that holds 'the neurotic symptom or symptoms' in place because of the client's lack of 'associative connection' between the memory (and/or fantasy) and the symptom.
Thus, according to Freud, the troublesome symptom has taken the place of the underlying, unconscious 'etiology-memory-fantasy-id ideas and impulses (in the form of a 'fixation' and/or 'regression' that is 'neurotic' meaning 'maladaptive', 'dysfunctional', 'self-destructive and/or destructive') that has in effect been 'dissociated, disowned, avoided, denied, suppressed, repressed, projected, displaced, transferred, sublimated'...from our conscious, working, thinking, problem-solving, conflict-resolving self or ego...
I would even go so far to say that sometimes -- indeed, oftentimes -- even when the 'symptom' is laid bare in term of its 'etiological (biological-trauma-fantasy-transference) predispositions' and current here-and-now 'trigger causes' -- still, the neurotic symptom may persist because it has been a long ingrained and 'conditioned' response-habit that is not likely going to change overnight simply because of some 'aha' insight and/or emotional catharsis.
This is where the idea of 'working through' (the resistance and the old conditioned response, and 'learning a whole set of new conditioned responses') generally becomes essential to the overall success of any psychoanalytic and/or any other school of psychotherapy....
Coming back to my goals here, I want to bring Freud's old 'reality-trauma-seduction theories' into line with his post 1896, evolving biological instinct (or impulse) and fantasy theories, and after that, even elements of Object Relations, Self-Psychology, Bionian Psychoanalysis, Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Ferenczi, Reich...as well as all the different 'neo-psychoanalyses' of such noted theorists as Adler, Rank, Horney, Sullivan, Erickson, Fromm, Berne, Perls, Janov....
Obviously, this is a big project.
But one step at a time.
First, I want to do something as far as reformulating Freud's id and ego theory that hopefully is not too painful to my pro-Freudian readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)