Is it worth the time and energy required to try to re-define and re-describe Freud's concept of 'the id' as 'the id-ego' or 'the narcissistic ego' or the 'narcissistic id-ego'?
This would go against the grain of 91 years (1923 to 2014) of 'Classical Freudian' teaching and training.
Having said this, there are probably a good proportion of practicing Object Relations Psychoanalysts out there who don't even use the concept of the id anymore, or if they do, they use it sparingly, cautiously, perhaps as an adjective more than a noun, to the point where in many psychoanalytic circles it may have already become like a spare tire on an old, used car.
If you look at the Object Relations psychoanalysis of Fairbairn and Winnicott in particular, they have tried to move Psychoanalysis -- or at least Object Relations Psychoanalysis -- from an 'Instinct and/or Impulse-Drive Psychoanalysis/Psychology' (it is nice how ID Psychology could/can be used as an acronym for 'Impulse-Drive Psychoanalysis/Psychology) to an 'Object-Attachment-Seeking Psychoanalysis/and Psychology' (where the term 'object' is used technically to mean 'person' or 'image of a person' although it could mean 'image of a non-person object' as well).
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Saturday, August 9, 2014
From 'Classical (Fantasy) Psychoanalysis' to 'Greater Classical (Reality-Fantasy) Psychoanalysis'
Modified and updated Aug. 19th, 29th, Sept 7, 2014...dgb
Change the way you conceptualize something -- thinking outside the box to use the now common expression -- and you change the direction of your thought process.
Freud changed the direction of psychoanalysis when he rejected after 1896 his hard-earned reality-memory-trauma-seduction (childhood sexual abuse) theory which is often now referred to as 'Pre'-Psychoanalysis (1893-1896) in favor of the freshly evolving theory in his mind at the time that would carry his thinking the rest of his life -- i.e., his 'instinct-fantasy-drive-childhood sexuality-Oedipal' theory that Freud is now mainly famous (or infamous) for, which, together, is generally referred to as 'Classical' Psychoanalysis (1897-1939).
But what if Freud made a mistake rejecting his early reality theory to the extent that he did, which is a question that many serious analysts and non-analysts alike have asked themselves over the years -- especially when it came down to Freud choosing 'imagined' childhood sexual abuse (The Oedipus or Electra Complex in young girls) over the 'real' childhood sexual abuse that Freud was hearing about from is clients in his earliest years of investigation (1893-1896, and even before)?
This is the question that basically triggered the Psychoanalytic Scandal of the early 1980s involving
The Projects Director of The Freud Archives at the time -- Dr. Jeffrey Masson -- telling the whole world that Freud had turned his back on, and 'suppressed', childhood sexual abuse after 1896 with a growing strength of inflexible dogma the more years he put behind him after 1896, and that he did this as an act of 'moral loss of courage' in order to perhaps save his job and career, and not clash swords with the people who had power over his destiny -- the members (all men) of The Vienna Psychiatry and Neurology Society.
This paints a less than idealistic picture of Freud and his possible moral choice at the time. It could be that he was under a lot of duress from The Society -- basically being blacklisted by them, while Freud had a rapidly growing family to feed, Anna Freud having just been born in December, 1895. Or we can choose to believe what Psychoanalysis has told us to believe, and that is that Freud basically rejected his trauma-sexual abuse theory because it was an 'inferior' theory to his evolving fantasy theory, and/or that Freud never really completely abandoned his trauma theory -- it just played a subsidiary role in his thinking after 1896.
But how often do we hear of a theorist-therapist making such a radical 180 degree turn in theory in such a very short time -- proclaiming in the spring of 1896 that ALL of his cases of hysteria and obsessional neurosis had at their roots a history of childhood sexual abuse -- and that the members of The Vienna Society were 'jackasses' for not listening to him; and then turning around within the next year and a half and saying that he was wrong -- that the number of childhood sexual abuse theories that he had before believed were 'real', could not have possibly been real, that there were too many such cases to be 'credibly' deemed real, all the things that the Society had thrown at Freud a year and a half earlier, calling his theory a 'scientific fairy tale' -- Freud although initially rebelling against them and calling them 'jackasses' for not believing in the reality of his theory, well, it seems that Freud, between 1896 and 1897 basically internalized their argument, as well as finding an alternative set of theories that would take Psychoanalysis in a whole new direction -- for better, and/or for worse.
Looking back at it now, doesn't this whole series of events seem highly suspicious -- Freud basically going from rebelling to succumbing to the what The Society wanted to hear from him? This is what Masson argued throughout the 1980s and early 1990s (and still believes now) although The International Psychoanalytic Institute would not have anything to do with such an argument -- especially the part about Freud 'losing moral courage' -- and still will not to this day, although silently 'childhood trauma' has re-emerged as a heavy factor in contemporary psychoanalytic theory, whether that be from an Object Relations perspective, and Attachment Theory perspective, or a Self-Psychology perspective -- just not from Freud's original 1893 to 1896 perspective, which in my opinion, remains the proper foundation of ALL psychoanalysis, and, in large part, most brands of non-psychoanalytic therapy. Did patriarchal Vienna politics change psychoanalysis in 1896?
It certainly looks like it to me -- especially when you factor in the February, 1895 Emma Ekstein nasal surgery fiasco, and the birth of Freud's (and Fliess's?) 'wish fulfillment' theory between the rest of 1895 and 1896 -- small snippets of it visible in Freud's April-May, 1896 essay on hysteria being caused by childhood sexual abuse, foreshadowing the 180 degree radical turn of psychoanalysis to shortly come, the part about childhood sexual abuse being left behind, and the rise of The Oedipal Complex and the 'little girls erotic fantasies towards her dad 'allegedly distorting' her 'allegedly real' memories of childhood sexual abuse -- taking the place of the former childhood sexual abuse theory.
Looking back at this whole sequence of events from my 2014 historical pedestal, as Masson was in the 1980s, I am more inclined to support the opinion of Masson than The International Psychoanalytic Institute that 'something still smells rotten in the town of Vienna in the year of 1896.
Freud could have been a very early and brave women's and children's social activist around the implementation of better political and legal services to protect against the abuse of women and children in the family. For a very brief period in history -- April-May, 1896 -- he was. And then everything turned around and folded like a house of cards -- and now Freud remains heavily criticized -- rightly so -- for being the creator of a set of patriarchal assumptive biases that were built into (the poisoned?) heart and soul of Classical Psychoanalysis. How often after 1896 has real childhood sexual abuse been overlooked, ignored, suppressed in Classical Psychoanalytic offices around the world? That is a very scary question. Masson was quoted as saying that Psychoanalysis would have to recall all patients starting in 1900 (maybe earlier) like Ford had to recall all its Pintos!
Couldn't Freud have worked out an integrative 'reality-fantasy' theory that was at least more reality based than what he ended up creating? Or that wouldn't have satisfied the narcissistic demands of The Vienna Society who, it would certainly seem, didn't want to hear any more theories about childhood sexual abuse?
Psychoanalysis, over the years, became more and more criticized as being an 'Old Boys Club' -- a proponent of Victorian Patriarchal Bias as opposed to the proponent of 'Women's and Children's Civil Rights and Protections' that it could have become if Freud had stayed on his original path -- blowing the whistle on childhood sexual abuse, and continuing to blow it until changes were made in the rights and protections of women and children in abusive family settings.
Now, the opposite might have happened if Freud had persisted in the direction he was going in his April-May 1896 essay on childhood sexual abuse. He might have lost patients -- which in the letter of May 4th, 1896 to Fliess, Freud said that he had -- that his waiting room was empty and that he had been blackballed by The Vienna Society, doctors no longer referring patients to him. If this had continued, he would have been out of business, perhaps his career destroyed, and we might have never heard from Freud again. All speculation of course. But worthy of strong consideration -- the circumstantial, historical evidence, especially in the unabridged Freud to Fliess letters edited by Masson, seems strong enough to suggest that Freud purposely steered clear of any more serious talk about childhood sexual abuse. The 'erotic fantasies of children' took its place -- some might say a little too 'coincidentally' so.
Well, I intend to integrate the two bipolar opposite theories -- trauma theory and fantasy theory -- that Freud never integrated.
Masson said that he didn't believe it could be done although he liked my seemingly passionate spirit in trying. That was back in 2010. Probably, he would be less generous if he were to comment today -- although I am only surmising.
In one sense, this would require a rather massive integration -- connecting Freud's work of 1893 to 1896 harmoniously and logically with the rest of his work from 1897 to 1939.
But in another sense, it is a relatively easy integration -- or at least the crucial part of it.
Let us say that 'hysterics' -- a label that is not used much anymore (perhaps replaced in good part by the label of 'borderline personality') -- as well as almost all other 'neurotics' (another label that is not much used today but I will continue to use it) -- suffer from what might be called 'Early Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder' (EPTSD). Well, a part of the customary 'fallout' of this disorder is something that might be called 'Post-Traumatic-Fantasy-Defense and/or Compensation' (PTFDC).
And right there -- in that paragraph above -- is the essence of the main idea that we need to integrate Freudian early trauma theory with his later fantasy theory.
On this note, we will stop for today, and continue on this path, in the essays that follow.
-- dgb, Sept 7th, 2014.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Dialectic-Gap-Bridging...
-- Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process....
Change the way you conceptualize something -- thinking outside the box to use the now common expression -- and you change the direction of your thought process.
Freud changed the direction of psychoanalysis when he rejected after 1896 his hard-earned reality-memory-trauma-seduction (childhood sexual abuse) theory which is often now referred to as 'Pre'-Psychoanalysis (1893-1896) in favor of the freshly evolving theory in his mind at the time that would carry his thinking the rest of his life -- i.e., his 'instinct-fantasy-drive-childhood sexuality-Oedipal' theory that Freud is now mainly famous (or infamous) for, which, together, is generally referred to as 'Classical' Psychoanalysis (1897-1939).
But what if Freud made a mistake rejecting his early reality theory to the extent that he did, which is a question that many serious analysts and non-analysts alike have asked themselves over the years -- especially when it came down to Freud choosing 'imagined' childhood sexual abuse (The Oedipus or Electra Complex in young girls) over the 'real' childhood sexual abuse that Freud was hearing about from is clients in his earliest years of investigation (1893-1896, and even before)?
This is the question that basically triggered the Psychoanalytic Scandal of the early 1980s involving
The Projects Director of The Freud Archives at the time -- Dr. Jeffrey Masson -- telling the whole world that Freud had turned his back on, and 'suppressed', childhood sexual abuse after 1896 with a growing strength of inflexible dogma the more years he put behind him after 1896, and that he did this as an act of 'moral loss of courage' in order to perhaps save his job and career, and not clash swords with the people who had power over his destiny -- the members (all men) of The Vienna Psychiatry and Neurology Society.
This paints a less than idealistic picture of Freud and his possible moral choice at the time. It could be that he was under a lot of duress from The Society -- basically being blacklisted by them, while Freud had a rapidly growing family to feed, Anna Freud having just been born in December, 1895. Or we can choose to believe what Psychoanalysis has told us to believe, and that is that Freud basically rejected his trauma-sexual abuse theory because it was an 'inferior' theory to his evolving fantasy theory, and/or that Freud never really completely abandoned his trauma theory -- it just played a subsidiary role in his thinking after 1896.
But how often do we hear of a theorist-therapist making such a radical 180 degree turn in theory in such a very short time -- proclaiming in the spring of 1896 that ALL of his cases of hysteria and obsessional neurosis had at their roots a history of childhood sexual abuse -- and that the members of The Vienna Society were 'jackasses' for not listening to him; and then turning around within the next year and a half and saying that he was wrong -- that the number of childhood sexual abuse theories that he had before believed were 'real', could not have possibly been real, that there were too many such cases to be 'credibly' deemed real, all the things that the Society had thrown at Freud a year and a half earlier, calling his theory a 'scientific fairy tale' -- Freud although initially rebelling against them and calling them 'jackasses' for not believing in the reality of his theory, well, it seems that Freud, between 1896 and 1897 basically internalized their argument, as well as finding an alternative set of theories that would take Psychoanalysis in a whole new direction -- for better, and/or for worse.
Looking back at it now, doesn't this whole series of events seem highly suspicious -- Freud basically going from rebelling to succumbing to the what The Society wanted to hear from him? This is what Masson argued throughout the 1980s and early 1990s (and still believes now) although The International Psychoanalytic Institute would not have anything to do with such an argument -- especially the part about Freud 'losing moral courage' -- and still will not to this day, although silently 'childhood trauma' has re-emerged as a heavy factor in contemporary psychoanalytic theory, whether that be from an Object Relations perspective, and Attachment Theory perspective, or a Self-Psychology perspective -- just not from Freud's original 1893 to 1896 perspective, which in my opinion, remains the proper foundation of ALL psychoanalysis, and, in large part, most brands of non-psychoanalytic therapy. Did patriarchal Vienna politics change psychoanalysis in 1896?
It certainly looks like it to me -- especially when you factor in the February, 1895 Emma Ekstein nasal surgery fiasco, and the birth of Freud's (and Fliess's?) 'wish fulfillment' theory between the rest of 1895 and 1896 -- small snippets of it visible in Freud's April-May, 1896 essay on hysteria being caused by childhood sexual abuse, foreshadowing the 180 degree radical turn of psychoanalysis to shortly come, the part about childhood sexual abuse being left behind, and the rise of The Oedipal Complex and the 'little girls erotic fantasies towards her dad 'allegedly distorting' her 'allegedly real' memories of childhood sexual abuse -- taking the place of the former childhood sexual abuse theory.
Looking back at this whole sequence of events from my 2014 historical pedestal, as Masson was in the 1980s, I am more inclined to support the opinion of Masson than The International Psychoanalytic Institute that 'something still smells rotten in the town of Vienna in the year of 1896.
Freud could have been a very early and brave women's and children's social activist around the implementation of better political and legal services to protect against the abuse of women and children in the family. For a very brief period in history -- April-May, 1896 -- he was. And then everything turned around and folded like a house of cards -- and now Freud remains heavily criticized -- rightly so -- for being the creator of a set of patriarchal assumptive biases that were built into (the poisoned?) heart and soul of Classical Psychoanalysis. How often after 1896 has real childhood sexual abuse been overlooked, ignored, suppressed in Classical Psychoanalytic offices around the world? That is a very scary question. Masson was quoted as saying that Psychoanalysis would have to recall all patients starting in 1900 (maybe earlier) like Ford had to recall all its Pintos!
Couldn't Freud have worked out an integrative 'reality-fantasy' theory that was at least more reality based than what he ended up creating? Or that wouldn't have satisfied the narcissistic demands of The Vienna Society who, it would certainly seem, didn't want to hear any more theories about childhood sexual abuse?
Psychoanalysis, over the years, became more and more criticized as being an 'Old Boys Club' -- a proponent of Victorian Patriarchal Bias as opposed to the proponent of 'Women's and Children's Civil Rights and Protections' that it could have become if Freud had stayed on his original path -- blowing the whistle on childhood sexual abuse, and continuing to blow it until changes were made in the rights and protections of women and children in abusive family settings.
Now, the opposite might have happened if Freud had persisted in the direction he was going in his April-May 1896 essay on childhood sexual abuse. He might have lost patients -- which in the letter of May 4th, 1896 to Fliess, Freud said that he had -- that his waiting room was empty and that he had been blackballed by The Vienna Society, doctors no longer referring patients to him. If this had continued, he would have been out of business, perhaps his career destroyed, and we might have never heard from Freud again. All speculation of course. But worthy of strong consideration -- the circumstantial, historical evidence, especially in the unabridged Freud to Fliess letters edited by Masson, seems strong enough to suggest that Freud purposely steered clear of any more serious talk about childhood sexual abuse. The 'erotic fantasies of children' took its place -- some might say a little too 'coincidentally' so.
Well, I intend to integrate the two bipolar opposite theories -- trauma theory and fantasy theory -- that Freud never integrated.
Masson said that he didn't believe it could be done although he liked my seemingly passionate spirit in trying. That was back in 2010. Probably, he would be less generous if he were to comment today -- although I am only surmising.
In one sense, this would require a rather massive integration -- connecting Freud's work of 1893 to 1896 harmoniously and logically with the rest of his work from 1897 to 1939.
But in another sense, it is a relatively easy integration -- or at least the crucial part of it.
Let us say that 'hysterics' -- a label that is not used much anymore (perhaps replaced in good part by the label of 'borderline personality') -- as well as almost all other 'neurotics' (another label that is not much used today but I will continue to use it) -- suffer from what might be called 'Early Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder' (EPTSD). Well, a part of the customary 'fallout' of this disorder is something that might be called 'Post-Traumatic-Fantasy-Defense and/or Compensation' (PTFDC).
And right there -- in that paragraph above -- is the essence of the main idea that we need to integrate Freudian early trauma theory with his later fantasy theory.
On this note, we will stop for today, and continue on this path, in the essays that follow.
-- dgb, Sept 7th, 2014.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Dialectic-Gap-Bridging...
-- Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process....
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
The New, Introductory Essays to DGB Neo-Psychoanalysis: Essay 3: Key Connection Points Between Freud, Adler, and Freudian Trauma vs. Fantasy Theory
Let us imagine the life of a newborn infant -- first in Freudian terms, then in Kleinian terms, then we will split from both Freud and Klein, and move in a different direction.
According to Freud, the newborn infant is 'all id' (1923) -- and all 'primary narcissism' (1914).
Connecting these two concepts is important.
Freud officially introduced his new concept -- narcissism -- in his 1914 essay, 'On Narcissism'.
Perhaps it was partly introduced as a 'counter-concept' to Jung's concept of 'life libido' (as opposed to Freud's 'sex libido'), and Adler's concept of 'The Masculine Protest' (which would eventually become 'superiority striving'.)
Freud's concept of narcissism gave him a concept that had a little more 'generalization capability' than sexuality (although Freud generalized 'sexuality' to the max, and probably beyond).
To be sure, narcissism and sexuality were -- and are -- often intimately connected, but still, narcissism approached the subject of 'self', 'self-interest', 'self-absorption', 'selfishness', and 'self-esteem' (its presence and/or absence) in a partly new and different way than 'sexuality' did.
Narcissism can also be more closely connected to the 'will to survive', the 'will to power', and the 'will to self-empowerment' than sexuality can, although again, the two different factors can be partly or closely tied together in this regard.
So let us get this clear -- by 1914 both Adler (1911) and Jung (1913) had left and/or been left by Freud -- thus, by 1914 (On Narcissism), Freud was rhetorically and theoretical 'doing battle' with both Adler and Jung in public print (on top of past personal correspondence and/or private arguments.)
Now paradoxically -- let's start with Adler here -- two of the respective concepts that were driving Freud and Adler apart -- narcissism (Freud) vs. the masculine protest or later superiority-striving (Adler) -- also could be used as a partial bridge to bring them back together again (albeit that was not going to happen in either of their respective lifetimes. But in my fantasy, I can bring some of their ideas back into harmony with each other).
Paradoxically, as well, both concepts can be seen to have been essentially born as 'twin concepts' from the same Vienna Society Scientific Meeting -- in which Freud and Adler were very much on the same page -- November 7th, 1906. (As a historical aside, Freud would meet Jung in person a year and four months later, March 3rd, 1907, according to Duane Schultz, author of 'Intimate Friends, Dangerous Enemies: The Turbulent Relationship Between Freud and Jung', 1990, p. 64.
Adler was the presenter in this meeting -- about to publish a forthcoming essay and/or book on
'Organ Inferiority and Overcompensation' which was the subject of Adler's presentation.
According to Herman Nunberg and Ernst Federn, co-editors of the 'Minutes Of The Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, Voume1, 1906-1908' (1962, p. 42)....
Freud attributed great importance to Adler's work; it has brought his own work a step further. To judge from the immediate impression, much of what Adler said may be correct.
He singled out two leading ideas as significant and fertile: 1. the concept of compensation, according to which an organic inferiority is counterbalanced by a supervalent cerebral activity; and 2. that the repression is accomplished by the formation of a psychic superstructure. A similar formulation had occurred to him.
(More from the editors...) He (Freud? Adler?) can adduce the fact that in persons whose egotism, excessive ambition, and the like are prominent, analysis uncovers serious organic defects as the deepest cause. (DGB note: In Adler's later work, 'organic defects' would be generalized to 'inferiority feelings', 'inferiority complexes', and the 'compensation' would become 'superiority striving'.)
Nunberg and Federn note: It seems that Freud had in mind what was later characterized as an overcompensation or counterbalance for a narcissistic 'injury' although he uses anatomical language here. Nunberg and Federn also note: By the formulation of a 'psychic superstructure', Freud's similar formulation may have been referring to the formulation that repression is accomplished by the ego.
DGB note: If we combine Freudian and Adlerian language, including still later to come respective conceptuology, we might say (my integration) that early childhood 'ego traumacy' or 'narcissistic injury' results in sustained 'self-esteem damage' and a 'supervalent narcissistic fixation' around this 'injury' -- like inflammation around a physical wound -- that is ongoing, like a wound that never heals (unless it does heal), and an 'immuno-self-esteem-defensive-compensation reaction' that never quits as long as the 'psychic wound' doesn't heal, which tends to often be the case.
The 'immune-self-esteem-defensive-compensation reaction' can take almost an endless variety of customized defensive efforts of which some of the more generic reactions include: distancing (phobic and/or paranoid schizoid behavior), aggression, approval-seeking, addiction, obsessive-compulsion, compromise formation, displacement, sublimation, transference, disavowal (dissociation), projection, reaction formation, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, hysteria, hypochondria, psychosis, and I could keep going, but this is off the top of my head....
One last point here before we stop: It should be noted that the 'shift' in the personality from traumacy and self-esteem injury (inferiority complex) to defense and compensation involves one very important defensive compensation that still needs to be discussed -- specifically, fantasy.
Thus, we have a connecting point between Freudian trauma theory and his later fantasy theory that Freud himself never noticed enough to turn his 'trauma theory' and his 'fantasy theory' into a 'trauma-defensive compensation-fantasy' theory.
This is a huge revelation as it integrates Massonian criticisms of Freud's fantasy theory (and his 'suppression' and/or at least partial -- if not more than partial -- abandonment of his earlier trauma-seduction theory (1893-1896), at the expense of the 'birth' of Freud's burgeoning instinct and fantasy theory after 1896 until the year he died (1939).
1. Thesis: Freud's trauma-seduction (childhood sexual assault) theory;
2. Counter-Thesis: Freud's instinct-fantasy theory from 1897 to 1939, as supported by Anna Freud in 1981-82 before she died (and backed up by Kurt Eissler and the rest of The International Psychoanalytic Board of Directors);
3. Synthesis: DGB Traumacy-(Defensive-Compensation)-Fantasy (T-F) Theory.
This is where I will leave you today.
In our next essay, we will delve deeper into Freud's use of 'the id' as a primary personality construct, and whether this construct is still useful, needs to be modified, and/or needs to be scrapped altogether.
-- dgb, August 3rd, 2014.
-- David Gordon Bain, dgbainsky@yahoo.com
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Associative-Integrative Negotiations....
-- Are Still in Process....
According to Freud, the newborn infant is 'all id' (1923) -- and all 'primary narcissism' (1914).
Connecting these two concepts is important.
Freud officially introduced his new concept -- narcissism -- in his 1914 essay, 'On Narcissism'.
Perhaps it was partly introduced as a 'counter-concept' to Jung's concept of 'life libido' (as opposed to Freud's 'sex libido'), and Adler's concept of 'The Masculine Protest' (which would eventually become 'superiority striving'.)
Freud's concept of narcissism gave him a concept that had a little more 'generalization capability' than sexuality (although Freud generalized 'sexuality' to the max, and probably beyond).
To be sure, narcissism and sexuality were -- and are -- often intimately connected, but still, narcissism approached the subject of 'self', 'self-interest', 'self-absorption', 'selfishness', and 'self-esteem' (its presence and/or absence) in a partly new and different way than 'sexuality' did.
Narcissism can also be more closely connected to the 'will to survive', the 'will to power', and the 'will to self-empowerment' than sexuality can, although again, the two different factors can be partly or closely tied together in this regard.
So let us get this clear -- by 1914 both Adler (1911) and Jung (1913) had left and/or been left by Freud -- thus, by 1914 (On Narcissism), Freud was rhetorically and theoretical 'doing battle' with both Adler and Jung in public print (on top of past personal correspondence and/or private arguments.)
Now paradoxically -- let's start with Adler here -- two of the respective concepts that were driving Freud and Adler apart -- narcissism (Freud) vs. the masculine protest or later superiority-striving (Adler) -- also could be used as a partial bridge to bring them back together again (albeit that was not going to happen in either of their respective lifetimes. But in my fantasy, I can bring some of their ideas back into harmony with each other).
Paradoxically, as well, both concepts can be seen to have been essentially born as 'twin concepts' from the same Vienna Society Scientific Meeting -- in which Freud and Adler were very much on the same page -- November 7th, 1906. (As a historical aside, Freud would meet Jung in person a year and four months later, March 3rd, 1907, according to Duane Schultz, author of 'Intimate Friends, Dangerous Enemies: The Turbulent Relationship Between Freud and Jung', 1990, p. 64.
Adler was the presenter in this meeting -- about to publish a forthcoming essay and/or book on
'Organ Inferiority and Overcompensation' which was the subject of Adler's presentation.
According to Herman Nunberg and Ernst Federn, co-editors of the 'Minutes Of The Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, Voume1, 1906-1908' (1962, p. 42)....
Freud attributed great importance to Adler's work; it has brought his own work a step further. To judge from the immediate impression, much of what Adler said may be correct.
He singled out two leading ideas as significant and fertile: 1. the concept of compensation, according to which an organic inferiority is counterbalanced by a supervalent cerebral activity; and 2. that the repression is accomplished by the formation of a psychic superstructure. A similar formulation had occurred to him.
(More from the editors...) He (Freud? Adler?) can adduce the fact that in persons whose egotism, excessive ambition, and the like are prominent, analysis uncovers serious organic defects as the deepest cause. (DGB note: In Adler's later work, 'organic defects' would be generalized to 'inferiority feelings', 'inferiority complexes', and the 'compensation' would become 'superiority striving'.)
Nunberg and Federn note: It seems that Freud had in mind what was later characterized as an overcompensation or counterbalance for a narcissistic 'injury' although he uses anatomical language here. Nunberg and Federn also note: By the formulation of a 'psychic superstructure', Freud's similar formulation may have been referring to the formulation that repression is accomplished by the ego.
DGB note: If we combine Freudian and Adlerian language, including still later to come respective conceptuology, we might say (my integration) that early childhood 'ego traumacy' or 'narcissistic injury' results in sustained 'self-esteem damage' and a 'supervalent narcissistic fixation' around this 'injury' -- like inflammation around a physical wound -- that is ongoing, like a wound that never heals (unless it does heal), and an 'immuno-self-esteem-defensive-compensation reaction' that never quits as long as the 'psychic wound' doesn't heal, which tends to often be the case.
The 'immune-self-esteem-defensive-compensation reaction' can take almost an endless variety of customized defensive efforts of which some of the more generic reactions include: distancing (phobic and/or paranoid schizoid behavior), aggression, approval-seeking, addiction, obsessive-compulsion, compromise formation, displacement, sublimation, transference, disavowal (dissociation), projection, reaction formation, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, hysteria, hypochondria, psychosis, and I could keep going, but this is off the top of my head....
One last point here before we stop: It should be noted that the 'shift' in the personality from traumacy and self-esteem injury (inferiority complex) to defense and compensation involves one very important defensive compensation that still needs to be discussed -- specifically, fantasy.
Thus, we have a connecting point between Freudian trauma theory and his later fantasy theory that Freud himself never noticed enough to turn his 'trauma theory' and his 'fantasy theory' into a 'trauma-defensive compensation-fantasy' theory.
This is a huge revelation as it integrates Massonian criticisms of Freud's fantasy theory (and his 'suppression' and/or at least partial -- if not more than partial -- abandonment of his earlier trauma-seduction theory (1893-1896), at the expense of the 'birth' of Freud's burgeoning instinct and fantasy theory after 1896 until the year he died (1939).
1. Thesis: Freud's trauma-seduction (childhood sexual assault) theory;
2. Counter-Thesis: Freud's instinct-fantasy theory from 1897 to 1939, as supported by Anna Freud in 1981-82 before she died (and backed up by Kurt Eissler and the rest of The International Psychoanalytic Board of Directors);
3. Synthesis: DGB Traumacy-(Defensive-Compensation)-Fantasy (T-F) Theory.
This is where I will leave you today.
In our next essay, we will delve deeper into Freud's use of 'the id' as a primary personality construct, and whether this construct is still useful, needs to be modified, and/or needs to be scrapped altogether.
-- dgb, August 3rd, 2014.
-- David Gordon Bain, dgbainsky@yahoo.com
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Associative-Integrative Negotiations....
-- Are Still in Process....
Sunday, July 27, 2014
The New, Introductory Essays to DGB Neo-Psychoanalysis: Essay 2: Should Psychoanalysis Keep Freud's Concept of 'The Id'?
My goal here is to integrate Freud's 'Early' Psychoanalysis (1893-1896), his 'Classical' Psychoanalysis (1897-1939), Object Relations, and Self Psychology. I will even invent a new label here -- 'Greater Classical' Psychoanalysis which will include both Freud's Early Psychoanalysis and his later Classical Psychoanalysis.
Our starting point for this integration will be Freud's concept of 'the id'. How do we integrate Freud's 'bio-psychoanalysis' with Melanie Klein's and Ronald Fairbairn's respective brands of Object Relations. Melanie Klein already gave us her conceptualization of this integration which included Freud's concept of the id and the 'life' and 'death instincts'.
In contrast, Fairbairn more or less turned away from Freud's bio-psychoanalysis to focus on the 'object attachment seeking goals' of people as opposed to their 'pleasure-seeking (or 'beyond pleasure-seeking') biological drives' (primarily in Freud's view, sex and aggression). Nobody says that this distinction between biological drives (Freud's life and death instincts) and Fairbairn's 'object-attachment seeking wishes, impulses, and/or goals' has to be an 'either/or' proposition. Klein certainly tried to integrate the two sets of motivations, which some psychoanalysts liked and others didn't. In the resulting 'battle' between 'The Anna Freudians' (who didn't like Klein's re-working of Freud's Classical Psychoanalysis) and 'The Kleinians' (who did), Fairbairn positioned his 'school' (which he didn't even like viewing as a school) as 'The Middle School' (which stayed out of the Anna Freud vs. Melanie Klein theoretical feud).
Well, I like Fairbairn's work a lot. However, I am going to try to re-integrate Fairbairn's work with both Melanie Klein's work and Freud's Greater Classical Psychoanalysis (as well as -- later -- to both Adler's work on lifestyle and conscious early memories, and inferiority feelings and superiority striving' as well as to Kohut's work on self-psychology, narcissism, and 'narcissistic transferences').
We have a lot of work ahead of us, and we are just beginning.
Let us start with Freud's concept of 'the id'.
In the divergence of Object Relations (OR) from Classical Psychoanalysis, some OR theorists have hung onto Freud's concept of the id (Melanie Klein and her followers, Hartman, Erickson, Winnicott) while other have not (Sullivan, Fairbairn, Guntrip) (Guntrip, 1971,1973, Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and The Self.) My thoughts that are unfolding below are based very much on this editorial summation on Guntrip's part of the evolution of OR thinking from the dualism of Freud's combined 'psycho-biology' and 'preliminary OR thinking').
In the OR group mentioned in the last paragraph, I probably have been influenced mostly by Fairbairn and Klein, partly by Guntrip in his conceptualization of the 'schizoid personality' often underlying more 'normal' and/or 'normal-neurotic' behavior.
However, I fall into line with the first group of OR thinkers who hung onto Freud's conceptualization of the id, as opposed to Guntrip who believed that psychodynamic thinking -- or at least OR psychodynamic thinking -- was being chained down by Freud's psycho-biological (id) conceptualizations. I disagree with that belief on Guntrip's part but will make my own effort below to more harmoniously integrate Freudian, Kleinian, and Fairbairnian thinking.
If you are a beginning Freud student, you can look up Freud's conceptualization of the id just by googling 'the id' for starters. That is our starting point. My conceptualization of the id can be either viewed as very similar to Freud's -- or very different -- depending on your perspective. Mine is a more OR conceptualization of the id which perhaps may bring the id more in line with Object Relations thinking -- not only of the Kleinian type but also of the Fairbairnian type (which doesn't include the concept of the id).
Basically, the first thing I am trying to do is to turn the id into a functional part of the ego, and visa versa. Freud's conceptualization of the id as being like a 'cauldron' or a 'reservoir' containing 'the life and death instincts' is rather mechanistic and inorganic -- a 'thing', a 'container' -- compared to the idea of the id as a thinking, feeling, driving, wanting, lusting part of the personality. I would conceptualize the id by connecting it to another name -- 'the narcissistic id-ego'. (There is some Kohutian-type thinking entering the picture here).
However, I will distinguish between two parts of the id -- the part mainly defined by Freud as being unconscious (subconscious, below our consciousness) -- as opposed to the part of the id -- our subjective id -- that either 'sneaks' its way up into our conscious personality -- or 'drives' and 'over powers' the defenses of our more 'socialized, morality-reality-based ego' on its way up there, and sometimes into blunt, direct action.
This is entirely different than Freud's insistence that we can only interpret the full desires of the id (which, according to Freud, is totally operating below consciousness), symbolically and symptomatically through 'the vicissitudes of the id' (does this semantic distinction really have any viable, functional meaning?) i.e., through phenomena like dreams, neurotic symptoms, jokes, projections, creations, sublimations, and the like. One way or the other, the subjective desires of our id -- or our 'id-ego' or our 'narcissistic ego' -- whether operating consciously or subconsciously -- are fully active in our personality at all times. Our 'id' is not like an 'alien' inside of ourselves (although sometimes it may feel like it) -- it is ourselves. It is that part of our personality that exists before and after socialization and morality are burned into our ego and superego. Our id and id-ego or narcissistic ego reflect what we want 'selfishly' before empathy and altruism and morality and ethics enter the picture.
So, in effect, our ego is part of our id, and our id is part of our ego. However, there is a part of our ego that identifies with our id, versus another part of our ego that both identifies with our superego (as well as external socialization, morality, ethics, law...) and in this identification defends against our 'idian desires'.
Thus, we can say that our ego is 'split within itself' (actually many ways if we want to classify our 'metaphysical ego-functions and ego-states or ego-compartments' in this manner.)
Or if you go back to Freud's conceptualization, we would have to say that our first 'split' is a 'splitting of the id into the id and the ego' -- or a splitting of our primary, primal, uncivil id-ego into a more civil, socialized, evolving id-ego
Either way, we have to say that our basic, primal-primary id or id-ego either expands or splits in a manner that our more conscious id-ego or ego is caught between a rock and a hard place, or 'internally split in two' -- identifying with either and/or both the narcissistic desires of the id or id-ego as well as the more socialized, civil restraints of that part of the id-ego or ego that identifies with our internalized superego and the external forces of both reality and moral-legal civilization.
Now, let us say for argument sake, that the id splits first into the ego. Before that, at birth, and for the first little while (a highly debatable time period) -- or metaphysically, maybe we are just 'imagining' this 'split' but need to classify it as happening 'conceptually-theoretically' -- the id and ego can be viewed as 'undifferentiated' and even Freud in one of his two last papers, 'The Origin of Psychoanalysis' (1938/39), used the term 'ego-id' right at the beginning of the paper.
So, at this point, we can either go Melanie Klein's route and say that the id and ego start to split at birth, during the relationship between the newborn infant and the mother (or mother's breast); or conversely, we can wait a little bit longer in the toddler's development, and say that the splitting of the id and ego -- or both, or both together -- starts to take place around 3 or 4 years old, 'the Oedipus period of development' -- and can start to be traced by more 'conscious memories of early childhood experiences'.
For purposes of my conceptualization here, I am going to say that the splitting of the id and the ego -- though certainly hugely influenced by the earliest child-mother relationship -- from a more 'subjectively empirical psychoanalytic perspective', can start to be traced with the client's/person's first conscious childhood memory. (Here, I am influenced by Adler).
This will be our working hypothesis as I 'introject' (or project) a hugely important element of Adlerian theory (from about the 1920s) into early Freudian Psychoanalysis (1893-1896).
At this point, I am going to say that 'creativity' starts significantly from our 'id' or 'id-ego' because the id, according to Freud, and supported by me, operates by 'no boundaries' and/or 'the seemingly paradoxical collision' of opposing (bipolar) ideas that can be 'integrated dialectically' as I am about to do.
So without trying to explain why, let me do something highly unorthodox and unique here -- and that is, pull an important part of Adlerian theory (lifestyle theory and the interpretation of conscious early memories) into early Freudian trauma theory.
Next, I will say that important 'lifelong, lifestyle-transference scripts' can be viewed as starting to form -- or at least become visible to a theorist-therapist who knows how to interpret them -- in the person's/client's first conscious memory -- and particularly, usually, the person's/client's first conscious traumatic memory (even if by 'traumatic' here, we mean what might be viewed as 'subjectively traumatic in the eyes and experience of a 3 or 4 year old toddler'. Early childhood rejections, exclusions, and/or perceived failures are very likely to stand out in this regard.
From these experiences -- and their opposites (triumphs, accomplishments, encouragements, and 'narcissistic fixations' of a positive as opposed to a negative, traumatic, sort), can be interpreted in partly psychoanalytic, partly Adlerian fashion, in a way that we (meaning the theorist and/or therapist) can start to 'profile' a person's most important 'transference scripts' (an Eric Berne influence here). These transference scripts can be interpreted from conscious early memories of scenes that we will call 'transference memories' of 'transference scenes'.
And that is where we will stop today.
-- dgb, Monday, July 27th, 2014,
-- David Gordon Bain
.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
The New, Introductory Essays to DGB Neo-Psychoanalysis: Essay 1: Some Definitions of Different Types and Schools of Psychoanalysis and Neo-Psychoanalysis
Comments, feedback to David Bain, dgbainsky@yahoo.com
July 26, 2014
1. Introduction To This Multi-Integrative-Dialectic Project
Let me warn you ahead of time. If you are going to read my work -- and I certainly hope you will -- be prepared to read an integrative combination of orthodox Freudian theory, Object Relations and Self Psychology, different brands of neo-psychoanalysis and cognitive theory/therapy, and my own original, orthodox and unorthodox, formal contributions laid out here for the first time, having studied in the field of psychology as a passionate, obsessional hobby for over 40 years.
I think I have a sufficient academic resume to hold decent credibility of what I write about. I have an Honours BA in Psychology and Human Relations and Counselling Studies from The University of Waterloo (1974-1979), wrote my Honours Thesis for the highly acclaimed Cognitive-Behavioral Therapist, Dr. Donald Meichenbaum, spent two years studying/training at The Adler Institute of Ontario (1980-81), including attending a weekend seminar conducted by one of the founders of The Adler Institute, Dr. Harold Mosak, attended various workshops at The Gestalt Institute of Toronto, including seminars being run by two of the past Directors of The Toronto Gestalt Institute -- the late Jorge Rosner, and Joanne Greenham.
In 2010, I interviewed Dr. Jeffrey Masson in Hegel's Hotel (The Jeffrey Masson Interview) -- it was Masson who ignited my passion for Psychoanalysis ironically after he had already exited it.
On Linked In, you can find the rest of my resume online, including various commendations from an impressive assortment of different psychologists practicing all over the world. There will always be a list of psychologists who do not like what I have to write, but that is the case in any field of endeavor you work in, and it is the positive feedback that helps to keep me going.
All told, I have spent some 40 years of my adult life studying psychology as a hobby -- particularly the research and theory end of things -- and can converse with relative ease, and move in and out of, most of the main schools of psychotherapy that can be classified under one of the following headings: 1. Psychoanalysis, 2.Neo-Psychoanalysis, 3. Humanistic-Existentialism, 4. Cognitive Therapy, 5. Transactional Analysis, 6. Client-Centered Therapy, 7. Gestalt Therapy -- call them 'The Magnificent 7' in the field of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy.
My mission is to 'synthesize and synergize' The Magnificent 7 into one mulit-dialectic-integrative school of psychology that I will call 'Quantum Psychoanalysis and Neo-Post-Psychoanalysis'.
I will do my best to communicate the main essence of this 'Multi-Dialectic-Integrative (Quantum) Psychoanalysis in about 50 mini-lecture-essays that you can read here on Hegel's Hotel -- starting with this one.
I am always working to try to improve my evolving model of the human psyche -- based very much on different parts of Freudian theory with a lot more 'compartments' than Freud's famous triadic model -- id, ego, and superego, as I 'split the ego' not only in partly Freudian, partly Object Relations style, but also 'split the id' and 'split the superego' as well.
Metaphorically speaking, Freud's 'Victorian house' becomes a much larger 'monster home' in the 21st century -- indeed, you can say that it becomes the most important part of my now 8 year old 'Hegel's Hotel' project and contribution, the metaphor being for a 'symbolic hotel' that is built from -- say 50 to 100 philosophers and psychologists or more, each with their own 'room' or 'set of rooms' or 'entire floor', or more.
Certainly, Freud deserves 'numerous floors' in Hegel's Hotel, from the basement up to about the 30th floor, if not an entire 'hotel' in his own name.
Some of the most unorthodox -- and stretching outside the boundaries of 'normal' psychoanalytic thinking -- psychoanalytic ideas back in Freud's lifetime were called 'wild' psychoanalysis by Freud, to indicate their 'crossing' of usual psychoanalytic boundaries into a realm that lay 'outside' of usual psychoanalytic practice. Freud once wrote an essay on 'wild' psychoanalysis towards the end of his career.
Otto Gross and Wilhelm Reich stand out in my mind, and probably Ferenczi towards the end of his career, maybe even Rank as well. All had important contributions to make to psychoanalysis and/or what would eventually become different brands of neo-psychoanalysis.
So I feel that I am in good company and don't mind if you call me a 'wild' (underground) psychoanalytic thinker. In fact, I quite like it.
As long as I can make my case for the rationale behind what I about to write about here. In this regard, there will be lots of quotes from Freud at different times in his professional career, as well as a further assortment of psychoanalytic, neo-post-psychoanalytic, and even some 'wild' psychoanalytic thinkers, all screened and sometimes modified through the brain of yours truly here.
Even Melanie Klein was a 'wild' psychoanalytic thinker when she first introduced her own ideas into psychoanalysis. 'Wild' can mean 'free thinking' and 'creative thinking' as well, in some cases, referring to 'quackery'. I would prefer to stay away from the latter label.
'Quantum' refers to the idea of 'multi-dialectic-multi-bipolar-integrative thinking'.
To the best of my ability, I want to keep these presentations short and simple...
And also, educationally entertaining...
If you are still with me, I am happy, and we will turn to a discussion of 'the id'.
Cheers for those of you who choose to stay on board with me here, and in the presentations about to come..
I will be working hard for you to keep this subject matter interesting, stimulating, intriguing, and aimed at 'stretching' your own personal and professional concepts, theories, paradigms, and boundaries beyond the realm of any type of 'orthodox' psychoanalytic theory being taught today.
There is only one place in the world that you will find the integrative type of theory that is going to be presented here.
And that is here.
We all need a little 'wildness' in our lives to keep it interesting, and to keep ourselves both interested and interesting. Beyond a certain extreme -- well, I don't intend to drop off the deep end here, or at anywhere in my future presentations. I aim to avoid all 'abysses' as we strive to climb to top of Mt. Everest, or alternatively, referring back to my earlier metaphor, build Hegel's Hotel high into the sky. Please join me all motivated climbers and builders.
-- dgb, July 26th, 2014
......................................................................................................................
July 26, 2014
1. Introduction To This Multi-Integrative-Dialectic Project
Let me warn you ahead of time. If you are going to read my work -- and I certainly hope you will -- be prepared to read an integrative combination of orthodox Freudian theory, Object Relations and Self Psychology, different brands of neo-psychoanalysis and cognitive theory/therapy, and my own original, orthodox and unorthodox, formal contributions laid out here for the first time, having studied in the field of psychology as a passionate, obsessional hobby for over 40 years.
I think I have a sufficient academic resume to hold decent credibility of what I write about. I have an Honours BA in Psychology and Human Relations and Counselling Studies from The University of Waterloo (1974-1979), wrote my Honours Thesis for the highly acclaimed Cognitive-Behavioral Therapist, Dr. Donald Meichenbaum, spent two years studying/training at The Adler Institute of Ontario (1980-81), including attending a weekend seminar conducted by one of the founders of The Adler Institute, Dr. Harold Mosak, attended various workshops at The Gestalt Institute of Toronto, including seminars being run by two of the past Directors of The Toronto Gestalt Institute -- the late Jorge Rosner, and Joanne Greenham.
In 2010, I interviewed Dr. Jeffrey Masson in Hegel's Hotel (The Jeffrey Masson Interview) -- it was Masson who ignited my passion for Psychoanalysis ironically after he had already exited it.
On Linked In, you can find the rest of my resume online, including various commendations from an impressive assortment of different psychologists practicing all over the world. There will always be a list of psychologists who do not like what I have to write, but that is the case in any field of endeavor you work in, and it is the positive feedback that helps to keep me going.
All told, I have spent some 40 years of my adult life studying psychology as a hobby -- particularly the research and theory end of things -- and can converse with relative ease, and move in and out of, most of the main schools of psychotherapy that can be classified under one of the following headings: 1. Psychoanalysis, 2.Neo-Psychoanalysis, 3. Humanistic-Existentialism, 4. Cognitive Therapy, 5. Transactional Analysis, 6. Client-Centered Therapy, 7. Gestalt Therapy -- call them 'The Magnificent 7' in the field of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy.
My mission is to 'synthesize and synergize' The Magnificent 7 into one mulit-dialectic-integrative school of psychology that I will call 'Quantum Psychoanalysis and Neo-Post-Psychoanalysis'.
I will do my best to communicate the main essence of this 'Multi-Dialectic-Integrative (Quantum) Psychoanalysis in about 50 mini-lecture-essays that you can read here on Hegel's Hotel -- starting with this one.
I am always working to try to improve my evolving model of the human psyche -- based very much on different parts of Freudian theory with a lot more 'compartments' than Freud's famous triadic model -- id, ego, and superego, as I 'split the ego' not only in partly Freudian, partly Object Relations style, but also 'split the id' and 'split the superego' as well.
Metaphorically speaking, Freud's 'Victorian house' becomes a much larger 'monster home' in the 21st century -- indeed, you can say that it becomes the most important part of my now 8 year old 'Hegel's Hotel' project and contribution, the metaphor being for a 'symbolic hotel' that is built from -- say 50 to 100 philosophers and psychologists or more, each with their own 'room' or 'set of rooms' or 'entire floor', or more.
Certainly, Freud deserves 'numerous floors' in Hegel's Hotel, from the basement up to about the 30th floor, if not an entire 'hotel' in his own name.
Some of the most unorthodox -- and stretching outside the boundaries of 'normal' psychoanalytic thinking -- psychoanalytic ideas back in Freud's lifetime were called 'wild' psychoanalysis by Freud, to indicate their 'crossing' of usual psychoanalytic boundaries into a realm that lay 'outside' of usual psychoanalytic practice. Freud once wrote an essay on 'wild' psychoanalysis towards the end of his career.
Otto Gross and Wilhelm Reich stand out in my mind, and probably Ferenczi towards the end of his career, maybe even Rank as well. All had important contributions to make to psychoanalysis and/or what would eventually become different brands of neo-psychoanalysis.
So I feel that I am in good company and don't mind if you call me a 'wild' (underground) psychoanalytic thinker. In fact, I quite like it.
As long as I can make my case for the rationale behind what I about to write about here. In this regard, there will be lots of quotes from Freud at different times in his professional career, as well as a further assortment of psychoanalytic, neo-post-psychoanalytic, and even some 'wild' psychoanalytic thinkers, all screened and sometimes modified through the brain of yours truly here.
Even Melanie Klein was a 'wild' psychoanalytic thinker when she first introduced her own ideas into psychoanalysis. 'Wild' can mean 'free thinking' and 'creative thinking' as well, in some cases, referring to 'quackery'. I would prefer to stay away from the latter label.
'Quantum' refers to the idea of 'multi-dialectic-multi-bipolar-integrative thinking'.
To the best of my ability, I want to keep these presentations short and simple...
And also, educationally entertaining...
If you are still with me, I am happy, and we will turn to a discussion of 'the id'.
Cheers for those of you who choose to stay on board with me here, and in the presentations about to come..
I will be working hard for you to keep this subject matter interesting, stimulating, intriguing, and aimed at 'stretching' your own personal and professional concepts, theories, paradigms, and boundaries beyond the realm of any type of 'orthodox' psychoanalytic theory being taught today.
There is only one place in the world that you will find the integrative type of theory that is going to be presented here.
And that is here.
We all need a little 'wildness' in our lives to keep it interesting, and to keep ourselves both interested and interesting. Beyond a certain extreme -- well, I don't intend to drop off the deep end here, or at anywhere in my future presentations. I aim to avoid all 'abysses' as we strive to climb to top of Mt. Everest, or alternatively, referring back to my earlier metaphor, build Hegel's Hotel high into the sky. Please join me all motivated climbers and builders.
-- dgb, July 26th, 2014
......................................................................................................................
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Essay 13: A 'Universal' Element in Most Different Schools of Psychotherapy
There is a more or less universal element in most major schools of psychotherapy that perhaps I can describe the essence of here.
Specifically, we all tend to 'dissociate' some of our more 'unsocial (unpalatable, irreconcilable, unbearable) emotions'; they tend to get locked up in what might be called a 'stress bin' or an 'emotional dissociation vault'....and over time this bin or vault full of stressed out, often toxically unexpressed emotions, can make us sick...(and/or miserable to live with).
Release the troubling elixir of emotions from our 'dissociation vault' -- and we relieve stress in both our mind and body...We feel better....
What person does not become 'emotionally out of balance' depending on particular context situations...from time to time? Some obviously more than others, and some obviously to a greater extent than others.... But it is by working through this process -- in the here and now -- that we all can 'alleviate' the stress that may be building up inside our 'Dissociated Stress Vault or Bin (DSV or DSB or just Stress Bin)'
Now, we all have 'Signature Methods of Operation' (SMOs) or 'Signature Transference-Immediacy Constructions' (STICs) or 'Signature Serial Behavior Patterns (SSBPs)' that we create and that we are responsible for both what we put into our Stress Bin and how we vicariously or subconsciously deal with what we put in there. Sometimes what we put in there goes back to our earliest childhood memories....
'Transference' issues belong to the 'there and then' -- these are past learnings and compensations from our often earliest learnings that we 'transfer' or 'associate' with new things (immediacy issues) that are happening in our present day life .
Transference and immediacy issues exist in different parts of the personality. But every now and again -- actually, to different degrees of intensity and urgency -- they are connecting all the time. We base our present experiences and perceptions, interpretations, judgments, very much on what we have experienced, learned, interpreted, judged, and compensated for in the past. Thus, immediacy issues become 'trigger stimuli' for the release of 'unfinished or unresolved transference issues' -- and visa versa.
These are what I call 'TICs' and/or 'TIPs' or 'TIPIs' or 'TIPS' (Transference-Immediacy Constructions, Transference Immediacy Projections, Transference-Immediacy-Projective-Identifications, Transference-Immediacy-Projective-Sublimations'...respectively...)
After a while of watching -- or reading in this case -- a person in action, one can start to get a feel for his or her SMO or STIC...or transference complexes/serial behavior patterns.
If you are a therapist, processing a client's SMO (again, signature method of operation) or his or her transference complexes -- as well as our own SMO based on counter-transference complexes -- is essentially what a therapist should be doing -- or at least a significant part of what a therapist should be doing -- both diagnostically and therapeutically in the therapeutic relationship...
That is what a psychoanalyst does, that is what an Adlerian psychologist does, that is what a Gestalt therapist does, that is what a transactional analyst or cognitive-behavior therapist does (relative to the 'games people play' in TA, and relative to the 'unbearable ideas' that cognitive therapy is looking for...
They diagnose and treat SMOs, STICs, serial behavior patterns, underlying transference complexes and the 'unbearable ideas and feelings' that these transference complexes are based on....
In other words, there is a certain 'degree of universality' to what most therapists are trying to help a client work through in the therapeutic process...
-- dgb, May 27th, 2014...
-- David Gordon Bain...
-- Dialectic GAP -- Gestalt-Adlerian-Psychoanalytic -- Bridging Associations, Integrations, and Negotiations...Are Still in Process....
Specifically, we all tend to 'dissociate' some of our more 'unsocial (unpalatable, irreconcilable, unbearable) emotions'; they tend to get locked up in what might be called a 'stress bin' or an 'emotional dissociation vault'....and over time this bin or vault full of stressed out, often toxically unexpressed emotions, can make us sick...(and/or miserable to live with).
Release the troubling elixir of emotions from our 'dissociation vault' -- and we relieve stress in both our mind and body...We feel better....
What person does not become 'emotionally out of balance' depending on particular context situations...from time to time? Some obviously more than others, and some obviously to a greater extent than others.... But it is by working through this process -- in the here and now -- that we all can 'alleviate' the stress that may be building up inside our 'Dissociated Stress Vault or Bin (DSV or DSB or just Stress Bin)'
Now, we all have 'Signature Methods of Operation' (SMOs) or 'Signature Transference-Immediacy Constructions' (STICs) or 'Signature Serial Behavior Patterns (SSBPs)' that we create and that we are responsible for both what we put into our Stress Bin and how we vicariously or subconsciously deal with what we put in there. Sometimes what we put in there goes back to our earliest childhood memories....
'Transference' issues belong to the 'there and then' -- these are past learnings and compensations from our often earliest learnings that we 'transfer' or 'associate' with new things (immediacy issues) that are happening in our present day life .
Transference and immediacy issues exist in different parts of the personality. But every now and again -- actually, to different degrees of intensity and urgency -- they are connecting all the time. We base our present experiences and perceptions, interpretations, judgments, very much on what we have experienced, learned, interpreted, judged, and compensated for in the past. Thus, immediacy issues become 'trigger stimuli' for the release of 'unfinished or unresolved transference issues' -- and visa versa.
These are what I call 'TICs' and/or 'TIPs' or 'TIPIs' or 'TIPS' (Transference-Immediacy Constructions, Transference Immediacy Projections, Transference-Immediacy-Projective-Identifications, Transference-Immediacy-Projective-Sublimations'...respectively...)
After a while of watching -- or reading in this case -- a person in action, one can start to get a feel for his or her SMO or STIC...or transference complexes/serial behavior patterns.
If you are a therapist, processing a client's SMO (again, signature method of operation) or his or her transference complexes -- as well as our own SMO based on counter-transference complexes -- is essentially what a therapist should be doing -- or at least a significant part of what a therapist should be doing -- both diagnostically and therapeutically in the therapeutic relationship...
That is what a psychoanalyst does, that is what an Adlerian psychologist does, that is what a Gestalt therapist does, that is what a transactional analyst or cognitive-behavior therapist does (relative to the 'games people play' in TA, and relative to the 'unbearable ideas' that cognitive therapy is looking for...
They diagnose and treat SMOs, STICs, serial behavior patterns, underlying transference complexes and the 'unbearable ideas and feelings' that these transference complexes are based on....
In other words, there is a certain 'degree of universality' to what most therapists are trying to help a client work through in the therapeutic process...
-- dgb, May 27th, 2014...
-- David Gordon Bain...
-- Dialectic GAP -- Gestalt-Adlerian-Psychoanalytic -- Bridging Associations, Integrations, and Negotiations...Are Still in Process....
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Essay 12: Hegel's Hotel: Dichotomies and Integrations of The Human Spirit: Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Adler, Klein, Fairbairn, Horney, Perls, Fromm...
Table of Contents
Part 1: Vision and Mission Statement: Homeostatic Balance and Humanistic-Existential Self-and-Social Acceptance-Actualization-Achievement, Contact and Celebration of Excellence;
A/ Hegel's Dialectic Hotel: Thesis, Counter-Thesis, Synthesis, and Start All Over Again (Hopefully At a 'Higher' Level of Evolution)
B/ Nietzsche's Dionysian Superman -- and Apollonian Nemesis: Institutionalized Thinking;
C/ Freud's Dualistic and Dialectic (Triangulated) Man: The Id, The Superego, and The Ego
D/ Other Philosophical Influences;
E/ Other Psychological Influences:
F/ Introducing GAP-DGB Philosophy-Psychology and The Dichotomized Phenomenology of The Human Spirit -- Good and Bad -- Unified and Split -- Ecstatically Achieving and Despairingly Failing;
Part 2: Theory and Therapy;
A/ GAP-DGB Ego-State Theory and Therapy: The Splitting of The Ego, Superego, and Id In The Process of Learning, Transference, Specialized Function, and Compensatory Defense
B/ The Nurturing Superego: Loving, Encouragement, Altruism, and Self-Esteem Enhancement
C/ Turning 'The Terrible Internal Trio' -- 1. The Critical-Righteous Alpha Superego; 2. The Rebellious-(Anarchist-Deconstructive, Counter-Critical and Counter-Righteous) Beta Under-ego; and 3. The Anxiety-Ridden, Attachment-Seeking, Omega Under-ego -- into 'The Terrific Internal Trio';
D/ GAP-DGB Central Ego Theory and Therapy ('SPICIER' versions of CBT: The Cognitive Awareness-Emotional Contact-Behavioral Achievement Wheel, The Communication Awareness Wheel, Dreams-Goals-Behaviors-Achievements, Integrations, Next...);
E/ GAP-DGB Depth Psychology: Education, Diagnosis and Psychotherapy ('FAULT' Freudian-Adlerian-Universal-Lifestyle-Transference 'TIPS' (Trauma, Identifications and Introjections, Projections and Phobias, Sublimations and other Super-Charged Compensations, Complexes, Creations...)
F/ GAP-DGB Re-Attachment Theory and Therapy;
1. Better Internal Object (Subject-Object-Self) Relations;
2. Better External Object (Subject-Object-Social) Relations;
3. Better Self-Work Relations (Searching for Self-Excellence Inside and Outside Ourselves Through Our Spiritual Passion For Our Work)
4. Uniting Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, Adler, Jung, Klein, Horney, Fromm, Perls, and Other Philosophical and Psychological Mentors Inside Ourselves to Create Our 'Own Path' Inside 'Hegel's Hotel', Our Heart Beating To The Drum of Our Own 'Phenomenology of Spirit', and to The Potential of Our Own 'Superman' or 'Superwoman'....Who Dares To Challenge and Traverse 'Nietzsche's Rope' Overlooking 'Nietzsche's Abyss' on the way From Our 'Old' Mountain of Entropy, Apathy, and Sterile Non-Being...to Our 'New' Mountain Plateau of Being, Becoming, Self-Awareness, Self-Contact, Self-Achievement, Self-Excellence... -- Diogenes, Dionysus, and Apollo All Dancing Together Inside Us in United Fashion To 'The Beating of Our Heart and Our Phenomenology of The Human Spirit United and at Its Best....
-- dgb, May 24th, 2014,
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Dialectic, Gap-Bridging, Attainable, Integrative Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)