Just finished...Dec. 23rd, 2009. -- dgb
'Man is not disturbed by things but by the view which he takes of them.' -- Epictetus (55 AD - 135 AD) Roman (Greek-born) slave & Stoic philosopher
Ego traumacies can be big or small, viewed from either a 'subjective' and/or 'objective' perspective. A couple of well-known philosophers -- Schopenhauer and Nietzsche -- lost their fathers during their teenage years. Schopenhauer's father's death was a suicide which I am sure has much to do with the fact that Schopenhauer's philosophy is probably the most morbid and negative -- 'narcissistic, pessimistic, cynical' -- philosophy in the history of Western Philosophy. It as if Schopenhauer 'projected' the whole of his own most morbid, pessimistic, cynical, negative, narcissistic psyche 'out into the world' and this he called basically --- 'The Unconscious Will of The Cosmos' which, according to his philosophy, moves through all of us .
Maybe there is a scary, uncomfortable feeling in some of us who read and/or are familiar with Schopenhauer's particular brand of 'pessimistic, narcissistic' philosophy, that maybe Schopenhauer came closer to something at least important enough to give him his due credit for, and some of that influence moved on to the work of Freud...perhaps partly through Nietzsche, although Nietzsche wasn't nearly as pessimistic and deterministic in his brand of thinking thinking as Schophenhauer. Nietzsche's brand of philosophy was more 'the sky's the limit for those of us who dare to stretch for the sky, and to persevere until we get there...'
However, back in a more Schopenhauerian philosophical template, there are times in each of our lives when life is simply not nice to us (and/or we are not nice to life). But we do not have to take what may seem to be the worst scenario that life can give us -- and add even more fuel onto a raging Schopenhauer fire -- by turning to some rendition of his 'stereotyped negative, pessimistic, cynical philosophy' and fossilizing it, as well as ourselves in the process. Like Epictetus, quoted at the beginning of this essay, who at least found a way to endure his slavery by turning to the 'capability of freedom within his own mind to control how external events are perceived, interpreted, and judged, and to not let these external events disturb him unnecessarily' -- we all have the capability for this same internal freedom.
This having been said, I am sure that not many of us have had to endure the type of 'slavery' that Epictetus had to endure. In North America, I am writing to at least two partly democratic countries (although 'narcissistic authoritarianism' still underlies much of this 'pseudo-democracy'). Thus, most of us have two courses of potential action (or an integrative combination of both) that we can take if we are not happy with our present situation: 1. Change our internal philosophy; and/or 2. change whatever aspect of our external environment that needs to changed in order for us to feel good about ourselves and our life again. Everything else is bogus. Everything else is the 'forest hiding the trees'.
It is hard to believe that Freud wasn't at least partly (or significantly) influenced into creating his own concept of 'The Id' from Schopenhauer's idea of the 'Narcissistic Will of The Cosmos'. The world is -- for the most part, although not entirely -- a very narcissistic place to be these days. You see political and corporate narcissism completely out of control at the top -- and the people 'running the show at the top' not being held accountable for their unethical, and often illegal, actions.
And for the people down further in the political and/or corporate hierarchy, it is hard not to 'change one's attitude, one's philosophy, and one's action in an attempt to compensate'. 'If you can't beat them, join them.' Learn their game and either play it with them (the safer route if you want to keep your job), or play it against them (which can, and likely will, either get you suspended and/or fired.) Third alternative -- leave -- which is probably the best of the three plans providing you have a good back-up plan. But how many of us have a good back-up plan waiting in the wings when there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers not working out there who would love to have the job that you hate, and who would take it in a heart beat. Advantage -- 'Narcissistic, Unethical Corporate Management'. With very little in the way of 'Political and/or Corporate Ethical Accountability' to answer to -- especially during a raging recession. You hear politicians -- and sometimes corporate leaders -- talking about 'ethics' and 'accountability' and 'transparency' all the time.
But how many political and corporate leaders today are actually 'walking the ethical, accountable walk without having hidden narcissistic, unethical personal agendas that are running rampant underneath their smooth-talking pretentious ideology.'
Is there a political and/or corporate leader out there anywhere anymore who actually knows how to both 'talk the talk and walk the walk' -- who knows how to act on the basis of his or her professed political and/or corporate idealism without having this 'alleged idealism' basically crumble into pretentious false ideology the minute that the media is no longer watching, and/or the minute that the smoothest talking and most honest sounding politician wins an election platform and enters into power. Surrounded by corporate sharks, piranha, hyenas, leeches, parasites...you get the picture...all wanting a big piece of the new action, and all wanting a 'pound of narcissistic flesh' from the supposedly and/or wannabe new, 'idealistic' leader. The philosophy of all the narcissistic political and corporate lobbyists (not all of them but most of them I believe to have 'unethical, one-sided, narcissistic motives') is essentially this:
Who can I influence and what do I have to do to influence them in order to get what I want? More crudely put, oftentimes (I do not have the inside presence in the political arena to speculate on percentage) the question can be worded as this: Who do I need to buy off (or intimidate or threaten) -- and/or how much do I have to throw at him or her or them -- in order to get the contract or the law that I want to narcissistically as opposed to democratically push through? Am I overgeneralizing here? Am I too pessimistic, too cynical? I don't think so.
How long is a new, fresh, uplifting philosophical system of idealism -- and the man and/or woman trying perhaps bravely and honestly at first to engineer this fresh idealism -- going to last in an ocean of polluted, corrupted, political-corporate-lobbyist-special-interest narcissism full of the nasty types of creatures listed above that are generally more powerful in numbers (and economic clout) than any new, young, wannabe idealistic leader? Forgive me for my brief rant here, my brief bout of unadulterated pessimism and cynicism that just came tumbling out of my fingers here in a floury of keyboard action. Optimism -- come back! Schopenhauer -- be gone!
Maybe there is a scary, uncomfortable feeling in some of us who read and/or are familiar with Schopenhauer's particular brand of 'pessimistic, narcissistic' philosophy, that maybe Schopenhauer came closer to something at least important enough to give him his due credit for, and some of that influence moved on to the work of Freud...perhaps partly through Nietzsche, although Nietzsche wasn't nearly as pessimistic and deterministic in his brand of thinking thinking as Schophenhauer. Nietzsche's brand of philosophy was more 'the sky's the limit for those of us who dare to stretch for the sky, and to persevere until we get there...'
However, back in a more Schopenhauerian philosophical template, there are times in each of our lives when life is simply not nice to us (and/or we are not nice to life). But we do not have to take what may seem to be the worst scenario that life can give us -- and add even more fuel onto a raging Schopenhauer fire -- by turning to some rendition of his 'stereotyped negative, pessimistic, cynical philosophy' and fossilizing it, as well as ourselves in the process. Like Epictetus, quoted at the beginning of this essay, who at least found a way to endure his slavery by turning to the 'capability of freedom within his own mind to control how external events are perceived, interpreted, and judged, and to not let these external events disturb him unnecessarily' -- we all have the capability for this same internal freedom.
This having been said, I am sure that not many of us have had to endure the type of 'slavery' that Epictetus had to endure. In North America, I am writing to at least two partly democratic countries (although 'narcissistic authoritarianism' still underlies much of this 'pseudo-democracy'). Thus, most of us have two courses of potential action (or an integrative combination of both) that we can take if we are not happy with our present situation: 1. Change our internal philosophy; and/or 2. change whatever aspect of our external environment that needs to changed in order for us to feel good about ourselves and our life again. Everything else is bogus. Everything else is the 'forest hiding the trees'.
It is hard to believe that Freud wasn't at least partly (or significantly) influenced into creating his own concept of 'The Id' from Schopenhauer's idea of the 'Narcissistic Will of The Cosmos'. The world is -- for the most part, although not entirely -- a very narcissistic place to be these days. You see political and corporate narcissism completely out of control at the top -- and the people 'running the show at the top' not being held accountable for their unethical, and often illegal, actions.
And for the people down further in the political and/or corporate hierarchy, it is hard not to 'change one's attitude, one's philosophy, and one's action in an attempt to compensate'. 'If you can't beat them, join them.' Learn their game and either play it with them (the safer route if you want to keep your job), or play it against them (which can, and likely will, either get you suspended and/or fired.) Third alternative -- leave -- which is probably the best of the three plans providing you have a good back-up plan. But how many of us have a good back-up plan waiting in the wings when there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers not working out there who would love to have the job that you hate, and who would take it in a heart beat. Advantage -- 'Narcissistic, Unethical Corporate Management'. With very little in the way of 'Political and/or Corporate Ethical Accountability' to answer to -- especially during a raging recession. You hear politicians -- and sometimes corporate leaders -- talking about 'ethics' and 'accountability' and 'transparency' all the time.
But how many political and corporate leaders today are actually 'walking the ethical, accountable walk without having hidden narcissistic, unethical personal agendas that are running rampant underneath their smooth-talking pretentious ideology.'
Is there a political and/or corporate leader out there anywhere anymore who actually knows how to both 'talk the talk and walk the walk' -- who knows how to act on the basis of his or her professed political and/or corporate idealism without having this 'alleged idealism' basically crumble into pretentious false ideology the minute that the media is no longer watching, and/or the minute that the smoothest talking and most honest sounding politician wins an election platform and enters into power. Surrounded by corporate sharks, piranha, hyenas, leeches, parasites...you get the picture...all wanting a big piece of the new action, and all wanting a 'pound of narcissistic flesh' from the supposedly and/or wannabe new, 'idealistic' leader. The philosophy of all the narcissistic political and corporate lobbyists (not all of them but most of them I believe to have 'unethical, one-sided, narcissistic motives') is essentially this:
Who can I influence and what do I have to do to influence them in order to get what I want? More crudely put, oftentimes (I do not have the inside presence in the political arena to speculate on percentage) the question can be worded as this: Who do I need to buy off (or intimidate or threaten) -- and/or how much do I have to throw at him or her or them -- in order to get the contract or the law that I want to narcissistically as opposed to democratically push through? Am I overgeneralizing here? Am I too pessimistic, too cynical? I don't think so.
How long is a new, fresh, uplifting philosophical system of idealism -- and the man and/or woman trying perhaps bravely and honestly at first to engineer this fresh idealism -- going to last in an ocean of polluted, corrupted, political-corporate-lobbyist-special-interest narcissism full of the nasty types of creatures listed above that are generally more powerful in numbers (and economic clout) than any new, young, wannabe idealistic leader? Forgive me for my brief rant here, my brief bout of unadulterated pessimism and cynicism that just came tumbling out of my fingers here in a floury of keyboard action. Optimism -- come back! Schopenhauer -- be gone!
Psychoanalysis, clinical psychology, and psychotherapy do not exist in a cultural vacuum.
They exist in a world of personal, social, political, corporate, economic, national, and international narcissism.
Freud -- at least partly -- had to deal with the predominance of a different set of neuroses back in his early clinical days. The 'narcissistic neuroses' -- they were still there -- but they were largely hidden; they were hidden in the 'shadows' of the personality (Jung), or in what Freud many years later would call the 'Id' of the personality. A woman had a romantic infatuation for her boss. But she lives in a Victorian culture of a very 'strict and dominant, unrelenting anti-sexual Superego'. So she 'denies' her romantic-sexual infatuation, she 'buries' it, she 'suppresses' it, and/or she even 'represses' it. But this type of 'energy' no matter how badly we may want it to -- does not usually disappear; indeed, it stays very much active, even if it now starts to become 'covertly active'. This is one of the things that Freud -- as well as Breuer, Janet, and Charcot before him -- found in their separated and combined investigations. 'Sexual and/or romantic energy' was often to be found at the root of a clinical investigation into a woman's physical -- often called 'hysterical' -- symptoms. For a woman who had the 'genetic capability' of 'converting' sexual/romantic energy into a 'physical, hysterical symptom' or set of symptoms, this capability and clinical phenomenon became labelled by Freud as 'conversion hysteria'.
Connected with this idea, was the 'anti-gravity' principle of: What goes down, must eventually come back up. Call this the 'return of the denied, the suppressed, the repressed, the disavowed...'
There was at least two or three different ways that 'denied sexual/romantic energy' could come back up in a Victorian 'sexually and/or traumatically suppressed and/or repressed' woman: 1. a physical (hysterical) symptom; 2. the therapist (Breuer, Charcot, Janet, Freud...) helping the woman to 'put the mysterious piece of the puzzle of her own physical symptoms back together again into their proper 'wholistic context' and place of psychological origin like Humpty Dumpty being put back together again, usually through a process of 'hypnosis' or 'free association' resulting in a 'associative reconnection' combined with an 'emotional abreaction and/or catharsis' as the physical symptom and the sexual/romantic and/or traumatic memory are reunited onto the same playing field once again. 'Hysterics suffer mainly from reminiscences', wrote Breuer and Freud in their 'Preliminary Communications', 1893, Studies on Hysteria, Standard Edition, Vol. 2, p. 7.
But Freud still hadn't put the 'entire neurotic puzzle' together yet -- nor would he ever.
You see, Freud -- as brilliant a man as he was, and I have the greatest respect and admiration for some of his most brilliant theoretical and therapeutic discoveries such as 'transference' and 'narcissism' -- still had a propensity for 'theoretically overgeneralizing in opposite, bi-polar extreme ways'. This was both his theoretical and therapeutic downfall. Freud was a self-created victim of 'Aristotelean either/or logic'.
There is a contradiction in Freudian Psychoanalysis of the greatest proportions here. On the one hand, Freud's theory of personality is inherently Hegelian and based on the principle of 'dialectic bi-polarity and integration'. You have the 'Id' and the 'Superego' which are dialectically at opposite ends of the bi-polar extremes in terms of their 'psychic goals and wishes'. The Id is all about the wish to 'act out narcissistic biological and psychological impulses' whereas the Superego is all about the necessity of 'ethical self-restraint'. In between, we have 'the Ego' -- our own, individual, personal ego -- whose main function is to philosophically and psychologically mediate, negotiate, and integrate between the bi-polar opposing wishes of the Id and the Superego.
This is a very simple, sweet, efficient, and pragmatic model of the personality.
The model can be used just as efficiently and pragmatically today as it was (or rather, wasn't because it wasn't created yet) used in the Victorian era. The 'ego-id-superego' model was not created until 1923.
Still, some of Freud's main underlying ideas of Psychoanalysis were roughly in place before 1895 even as many, many new theories were still to come such as: his 'Seduction Theory' (1896), his 'Screen Memory Theory' (1899), his 'Dream Interpretation Theory' (1899/1900), 'his sexual fantasy theory' (1897 onwards...), his 'Infantile and Childhood Sexuality Theory' (1897 to 1905 and onwards...), his 'Oedipal Complex Theory' (1897-1899 and onwards...), his 'Transference Theory' (1895 and onwards...),
Still, the dualism and dialectic bi-polarity that Freud never fully figured out was the 'traumacy-fantasy' bi-polarity. This is where Freud 'got stuck and fixated' in his Aristotelean either/or logic.
First, Freud was caught up in the Charcot-Breuer-Freudian brand of 'traumacy theory' -- a childhood traumatic memory is denied, buried, repressed, and then resurfaces later as a clinical 'hysterical symptom or set of symptoms'.
Then, Freud and Breuer abandoned each other as Freud decided (to Breuer's dismay and refusal to carry on with him) to turn their shared 'traumacy theory' into Freud's new 'sexual traumacy/assault/abuse' theory which later became known as 'The Seduction Theory'. At this point in his new theorizing, Freud had both overgeneralized and over discriminated his clinical findings.
Specifically, there is sufficient clinical evidence in his therapy practice to show that Freud was seeing and hearing at least a good four, five, or six co-factors in the etiology of his patients' neurotic/hysterical symptomology: 1. traumacy; 2. sexual and/or romantic impulse and fantasy; 3. sexual child abuse and traumacy; 4. repression (which also was called 'defense' and later became a combination of different 'psychological defenses', most of them summarized in Anna Freud's classic Psychoanalytic work, 'The Ego and The Mechanisms of Defense' (1937, 1966, 1991) such as: denial, repression, suppression, displacement, transference, introjection, identification, projection, projective-identification, identification with the aggressor, compensation, confluence, sublimation, reaction-formation, disavowal, splitting of the ego...more could be added such as 'approval-seeking', 'distance-seeking', transference-reversal and counter-phobia, the mastery compulsion....the human imagination is practically endless in the functional and/or dysfunctional service of 'psychological self-defense' ); and 5. biological predisposition.
So the question needs to be asked: Why did Freud first emphasize one factor in his clinical findings (traumacy theory), then another (sexual assault-seduction theory), and then still another (sexual fantasy theory) without dialectically integrating them and bringing them all together into one coherent psycho-theoretical package?
And why has no one ever thought of doing it since? I shouldn't say 'no one' because I am sure others have at least partly tried in their own respective ways -- but none in such a fashion as to aim to completely rebuild Classical Psychoanalysis like I am trying to do here and now.
We have the Oedipal Theorists raging against The Seduction Theorists and visa versa (the prototypical anal-retentive Classical Psychoanalysts of the world following directly in the footsteps of Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, and Kurt Eissler who, with my highest respect for their individual and combined contributions but not their 'theoretical one-sidedness, their 'theoretical blinders' that they wore, and their 'conceptual narcissism' upon which their theoretical blinders were based, are all dead now...And still the 'clones' of Sigmund Freud's ghost keep coming and coming, keep coming back to us, keep getting 'classically analyzed and educated' ...like 'clone cars' coming off the same Ford or GM or Chrysler assembly line...even long after the 8 cylinder behemoths have long worn out their market welcome...(Well not totally...I still like driving my 8 cylinder Lincoln to work each day...so call me a bit of a hypocrite here...but still you get my point...)
Back in 1981, when Dr. Jeffrey Masson had started to turn Freud's 1897 abandonment of The Seduction Theory into world-wide front page news and a Psychoanalytic scandal, Masson received a letter from Anna Freud that read as follows:
Keeping up the seduction theory would mean to abandon the Oedipus Complex, and with it the whole importance of phantasy life, conscious or unconscious phantasy. In fact, I think there would have been no psychoanalysis afterwards. (personal correspondence from Anna Freud to Jeffrey Masson, see 1992, The Assault on Truth, p. 113.)
Well, with all due respect again, Anna Freud, and for that matter, Jeffrey Masson too, who was more of a prolific researcher than an integrative theorist, both lacked the theoretical imagination and/or desire to dialectically integrate their differences.
Which is why I am here writing this, and why both Anna Freud and Jeffrey Masson, as well as hundreds of other theorists and counter-theorists, philosophers and psychologists, get to freely walk and talk and debate while I host and mediate their differences inside the conference rooms of Hegel's Hotel...
In the 1980s, the Psychoanalytic Establishment and Dr. Jeffrey Masson squared off against each other like a pair of 'battling pitbulls in a dogpit' each with their 'hanging on bite' -- or I think I've used this metaphor before: Masson was like the proverbial raging bull crashing around inside the Psychoanalytic China Shop...until the 'Psychoanalytic bouncers' finally threw Masson out of the China Shop (Masson partly left on his own accord...but all the 'china' was lying on broken on the floor...)
Both sides did what they thought was 'right'. Both sides said what they had to say...
A Classic Hegelian-Mexican standoff. The classical one-two punch of 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis'.
With no 'synthesis' anywhere to be seen and/or found...
With careers and money and 'preserving' vs. 'deconstructing' the Freudian status-quo -- all at stake.
Masson eventually moved from America to New Zealand to study and write about 'animal psychology' and 'emotions in animals'...He has written a whole list of books after 'Assault on Truth' and 'Final Analysis', some on 'Anti-Psychiatry' and the rest on animal psychology, many of which I didn't even know existed until just recently... Masson simply turned and took his passion for researching and writing in another direction...
And The Psychoanalytic Establishment went back to being the very boring and mainly theoretically stagnant place it had been (especially Classical Psychoanalysis as opposed to Object Relations and Self-Psychology) that it had been before Masson arrived so energetically and charismatically on the scene...
Classical Psychoanalysis partly 'won' in the sense that once Masson was removed from the Psychoanalytic scene, it could go back to its very status-quo, stagnant, boring, one-sided, and at least partly 'pathological' existence. But in 'winning' -- it still 'lost'.
Because there is at least one sense in that I will come crashing through the theoretical and therapeutic doors of Classical Psychoanalysis just as hard as Masson did before me in the 1980s.
And it is in this sense:
Until Classical Psychoanalysis markets itself differently, and teaches its theories differently, and educates its Psychoanalysts differently -- it remains an 'anachronism from a different time and place', and worse than this, it remains an institution, a personality theory, and a system of psychotherapy based on 'an old patriarchal system of beliefs and values, with a dominance of male chauvanism, narcissism, and bias -- and no feminine and feminist compensations for this dangerously one-sided theory anywhere in sight -- Anna Freud for all her contributions to Psychoanalysis should have been ashamed of herself for not standing up for 'the phenomenology, the existence, and the self-respect of all women entering Classical Psychoanalysis -- particularly those women entering Classical Psychoanalysis who may have a case history of childhood sexual abuse, specifically as forced or manipulated upon them as a daughter by their father'...
In short, it is long past time that Classical Psychoanalysis removes itself from The Dark Ages, or at least from the Victorian Age... from a time when neither a man's nor a woman's sexual impulses could or would be properly accepted by the society they lived in -- and were 'covered up', 'suppressed', 'repressed' by many a woman, and from a time, like all times, where some fathers did/do indeed commit the horrendous crime of sexual assault against their daughters...
Until Classical Psychoanalysis can do this, until whoever is the most powerful person in The Psychoanalytic Establishment -- and I don't have a clue who this is now -- until this person, has the courage and the integrity to stand up in front of a public media presence and say: 'Freud was wrong in the degree of extremism to which he abandoned his 'Traumacy and Seduction Theory' and both of these theories need to be properly re-integrated into Classical Psychoanalysis. We are now going to take the proper steps to move in this theoretical and therapeutic direction towards their rightful re-integration'...until this person has the courage and integrity to say something like this in front of a public audience and a public media, I will take my own personal steps in Hegel's Hotel to, protest against the 'anachronism' of Classical Psychoanalysis's most theoretically and therapeutically pathological ideas... This does not include the sub-psychoanalytic domains of either Object Relations or Self-Psychology which, to my knowledge, have eliminated the 'Oedipus Complex' from their field of thinking.
Personally, I do not see the need to completely eliminate the Oedipus Complex -- I like to use the concept 'metaphorically' in ways that you will see examples of in the future -- but not to the extent of denying the existence of any and/or all cases of 'childhood incest' between some fathers and daughters.
Anachronistic (Classical) Psychoanalysis needs to 'detoxify' its most 'anachronistic and pathological' theoretical and therapeutic ideas. Otherwise, if I were a woman, I simply would not step inside any of its supposedly 'therapeutic' doors. For that matter, I can't see myself stepping inside any of its doors as a man either. Too much money, and too much theoretical and therapeutic sterility and stagnancy -- not enough theoretical and therapeutic evolution.
I do not see the need to completely abandon The Oedipus Complex as I have found a way to 'detoxify' Classical Psychoanalysis of its most anachronistic and pathological assumptions, and to more functionally integrate a 'detoxified' Classical Psychoanalysis with elements of Adlerian Psychology, Jungian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, Object Relations, Cognitive Therapy, General Semantics, and Transactional Analysis...with things still evolving and always subject to change...
If the builders in downtown Toronto can tear down the 'small homes' in Leaside and East York, and replace them with towering gigantic 'monster homes'...
Well, I can do the same in Hegel's Hotel...
In the famous, flamboyant words of the late Honourable Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau...
'Just watch me.'
But this is not all about ego on my part (although, to be sure, some or even much of it is -- men and women are both driven by ego, pride, narcissistic self-confidence and self-assertion, or the lack of it).
In the end, Hegel's Hotel has to be of functional social-personal-philosophical-psychological-business-political value. Because if it isn't, it will go the way of the dinosauer. Down the road to evolutionary extinction. Only those things and those ideas that continue to hold and carry functional value persist over time. If something is important, people will come back to it. If not, then not.
Bigger is only better if 'bigger' carries more functional personal and social value.
What I am looking for here is a 'hotel-full' of productive and integrative philosophical and psychological ideas where Freud's ideas don't have to be separated and isolated and alienated from Jung's ideas, and/or Adler's, and/or Reich's, and/or Perls', and/or Klein's, and/or Fairbairn's, and/or Kohut's, and/or Berne's.
In the famous words of John Lennon and the 'Fab Four'....
'Come together...
Right now...
Over me.'...
In Hegel's Hotel...
-- dgb, Dec. 23rd, modified Dec. 27th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are still in process...
.............................................................................................................................................................
