My partly inside, mainly outside observations and interpretations of contemporary psychoanalysis is that there is a generally concerted attempt to integrate all the major different 'sub-schools' of psychoanalysis within the full spectrum of teaching psychoanalysis 'as a whole' to new students and/or already practising therapists/analysts. To what extent this 'integration' has progressed is a debatable point -- I would say, generally speaking, that all the different 'paradigms' of psychoanalytic thought are being taught with some element of 'cross-talk' between the different paradigms but not to the extent of someone actually trying to sit down and create a logically coherent integrative system of psychoanalysis. Mainly, that is what I am trying to do here from a primarily 'outsider's' perspective. Nothing official. Nothing sanctioned by any psychoanalytic establishment. But still, my effort as as what I will call an 'underground psychoanalytic thinker' who can gravitate into most of the major sub-schools of psychoanalytic thought (Klein, Fairbairn, Guntrip, Kohut...) and the 'post' and/or 'neo' psychoanalytic paradigms of thought as well (Adler, Jung, Rank, Horney, Fromm, Berne, Perls, Janov, Masson...).
The Psychoanalytic School that I am partly familiar with (The Toronto Psychoanalytic School) is presently re-looking at Traumacy Theory from different psychoanalytic sub-school angles -- which I view as a 'good thing' (the failure of which was Masson's biggest criticism against The Psychoanalytic Establishment back in the 1980s -- i.e., their ignoring, denying, suppressing, dissociating Freud's combined 'Reality-Traumacy-Seduction (RTS) Theories' just like Freud largely did, and told his co-workers and students to do; at best after 1897, his traumacy theory lay in the 'shadows' of his thinking; at worst, it was completely run off the rails by his evolving Childhood Sexualty, Fantasy, and Oedipal Theories until he started to look at 'the war neuroses' and 're-visited' his traumacy theory on this basis (later to become a function of 'the death instinct' in, and after, 1920).
Now, with my not being a part of the overall psychoanalytic establishment or any part of it (other than being a possible 'in and out student' ), I have all the freedom in the world to assert my integrative ideas and not have anyone to answer to relative to any 'breach of psychoanalytic standard thinking' , especially when it comes to the very 'anally tight' Classical Psychoanalytic Paradigm', of which I totally intend to tear down a few conceptual theories and barriers that prevent Classical Psychoanalysis from becoming integrated with Object Relations, Self Psychology, and possibly other sub-schools of Psychoanalysis, not to mention other outside schools of therapeutic thought. To me, this project is like the liberation and integration of Germany through the process of tearing down the Berlin Wall.
Personally, I like many elements of Classical Psychoanalysis including the Classic Freudian distinction between 'oral characteristics' (bringing in, internalizing, introjecting perceived environmental nutrients) vs. 'anal characteristics' (rejecting, shutting out, 'spitting out', 'shitting out' perceived environmental toxins).
Consequently, I will use these two 'bodily metaphors' in the psychological domain like Freud and his co-workers did. This is not one of the areas of Classical Freudian Theory that I reject. Other areas, briefly already mentioned, I do reject. (its patriarchism, its sexism, its pan-sexualism, its pan-childhood sexuality, its pan-fantasy theory, and its pan-Oedipal theory, its diminuation of Freud's earlier trumpeted reality-traumacy-seduction theory...)
I want to bring Classical Psychoanalysis back to life in a much refurbished, much expanded and integrated fashion.
Excuse me for a little bit of 'narcissistic trumpeting' here, but I view myself as one of the most creative, unorthodox, underground, Classical-non-Classical Psychoanalytic thinkers that you will ever have the opportunity to read -- inside or outside Psychoanalysis. Now, obviously, the 'proof is in the pudding', and I leave it to you, my valued readers, to judge how much potential value you may or may not find in what I hope you are about to read.
However, I warn you ahead of time: Be prepared for the unexpected, the highly unorthodox, and a variety of uniquely different 'integrated and synergized ideas' that you will find in the essays that follow and that you will find nowhere else, as you debate internally whether what you are reading 'is or is not Psychoanalysis?' Is it 'botched psychoanalysis'? Non-psychoanalysis? Or 'progressive, evolutionary integrative psychoanalysis?
I wont' accept the first evaluative interpretation. But betweein the last two, you can take your pick. Both argumentive 'sides of the fence' are equally relevant, as anything that might have been called 'The Psychoanaltyic Fence' or 'The Psychoanalytic Wall' or 'The Freudian Psychoanalytic Wall' is essentially being torn or bulldozed down here -- just like The Berlin Wall was brought down in 1990.
Like The Berlin Wall, Freud's 'Pre-Psychoanalytic' Wall of The Winter-Spring of 1895-96 should be called 'The Wall of Shame' -- regardless of what Freud's inner motivations were -- because it essentially 'neurotically dissociated' pre-1897 Freudian 'childhood reality-traumacy thinking' from post-1896 'childhood fantasy-Oedipal' thinking. The two sets of Freudian theories -- the first largely rejected, dissociated, disowned; and the second trumpeted as 'the better choice' between the two competing theories for the rest of Freud's professional career -- well, they still both need to be much better integrated in a manner that is logically consistent with actual human thinking, feeling, wanting, and doing. Just like the 'neurotic' needs to become a 'more whole person', so too, Pre-Classical and Classical Psychoanalysis, between the two of them, need to 'come together' (in the words of John Lennon) to become a 'more wholistic 1893 to 1939 Classical Psychoanalytic Theory and Therapy'.
The two polar opposite sides of Freudian 1895-96 thinking still need to be 'functionally integrated and synergized' today using the 'dialectic-interactive-integrative logic' of Classic Hegelian, and my rendition of Post-Hegelian-DGB 'multi-dialectic-pluralistic, thinking'.
What I am aiming to do here -- and I think I will be able to show you how important this integration is to the future of Psychoanalysis or 'Post-Neo-DGB Psychoanalysis' -- is to create a new 'Dialectically Integrative Psychoanalytic Premise and Paradigm' based on the synergized assumptive logic of 'Freud's Reality-Traumacy-Seduction-Fantasy-Oedipal-Impulse-Thinking' -- within all of us -- which indeed is paradoxical and dichotomous. Because that is how we all think through the sum total of all our introjections, identifications, projections, sublimations, compensations, defences, transferences...
Well, not in all of us when it comes to the Freudian meaning of 'Seduction' which means 'the sexual seduction, manipulation, and/or flat out 'rape' of a child, usually by an adult, most commonly by the father, sometimes by an older child, all of which can be lumped under the category of '(Sexual) Traumacy Theory' relative to the victimized child -- assuming the child experienced the event as 'traumatic' which we cannot totally assume for sure in all the myriad of different types of cases...
For some children, the experience or experiences might become viewed as 'traumatic' years later under the influence of greater self and/or social awareness of what unpleasurably and/or pleasurably experienced in his or her much earlier years.
In contrast to the category of '(Sexual) Reality-Traumacy Theory', I will create a new category of thinking relative to the label of 'Seduction' and this will include any and/or all type(s) of human thinking, feeling, desiring, wanting, doing, whereby a person is consciously/unconsciously seeking to 'seduce' an adult transference figure/object who is deemed to be a 'symbolic surrogate of an early childhood transference figure/object with the defining Fairbairnian characteristics of exemplifying the features of a 'rejecting-exciting object'.
In what I am now thinking of calling (forgive me) 'DGB Quantum-Paradoxical, Post-Classical, Multi-Dialectic-Humanistic-Existential Psychoanalysis' (shorten it any way you want to), my integration of The Fairbairnian based 'rejecting-exciting object' becomes the heir to the Oedipal Complex -- and we all have one (a single, double, or more Oedipal Complex and resulting Rejecting-Exciting Internalized Childhood Object That Becomes Projected into Our Adult Encounters and Relationships -- our mom, our dad, and/or anyone else who happened to be 'psycho-dynamically meaningful to us, good, bad, and/or indifferent' in our earliest, most vulnerable evolving childhood years.
Oh, what a tangled web we leave,
When at first we practice to deceive,
Projected surrogates of early childhood mentors,
Resented and/or hated transference figures
From our past,
Real people -- we think we love, and/or have loved...
And/or loving transference figures -- and real people --
We think we hate, and/or have hated,
This is the essence of our inherent battle,
With our own internal and external,
Engaging and/or dissociating,
Rejecting-rejected-
Attracting-exciting,
Emotionally and libidonously cathected,
Transference figures, objects, people...
From our childhood past,
And the real, live, present-day people,
Who continue to 're-awaken these ghosts and skeletons',
From our past,
And the essence,
The intensity,
The passion, the excitement,
The anxiety, the panic, the guilt,
The acute despair and/or chronic depression,
The hope and/or hopelessness,
Of our 'internally-introjected' childhood self-object world,
Into our 'externally-projected' adult self-object world,
This is the essence of 'The Quantum-Paradoxical-Chaotic Psychoanalysis'...
That I will attempt to communicate to you,
In these essays to follow...
Let me be clear at this point that I seek neither the 'approval' of The PE or that of Dr. Jeffrey Masson as I seek to 'dialectically bridge the gap' between their previously opposite perspectives on 'The Freudian Wall of 1895-96'.
I am seeking to 'triangulate truth, value, and The Psychoanalytic Dialectic Path' through the Hegelian Dialectic Logical Process of: 1. Thesis; 2. Counter (or Anti) Thesis; and Dialectic Synthesis-Synergy. The idea here is to 'work' both 'polar perspectives of opinion' towards 'the dialectically integrative middle'.
All of my philosophical and psychological influences are important here, including Freud himself, Adler, Jung, Perls, Klein, Fairbairn, Fromm, Horney, Rank, Guntrip, Bird, Kohut -- all of these brilliant theorists have been 'introjected' into my 'unconscious blending machine' and come out in the fashion that you will see developed below...Consequently, my 'post-Hegelian' concept of 'multi-dialectic-pluralistic integration and synergy'.
With special mention and credit to Jeffrey Masson because without his influence, I most likely would never have become aware of 'The Seduction Theory Controversy', let alone have become 'obsessed' with it -- and ultimately, obsessed with the study of psychoanalysis as a whole...
Thus, ultimately, even though our 'solutions' to the Seduction Theory Controversy and to the 'various plights and theoretical issues' of Classical Psychoanalysis may differ -- my 'solution' being much more 'dialectically integrative and synergetic' than Masson's (his solutions pointing more unilaterally backwards to Freud's earliest writing between 1893 and 1896 during a time when Freud's 'reality, traumacy, and seduction theories' dominated, not his 'childhood sexuality, fantasy, and Oedipal theories' of post-1896) -- still, this essay is, first and foremost, a tribute to the man who 'motivationally inspired and engaged me', to work myself 'obsessionally forward' to this 'creative place' that I have found here...
That has been a time period of about 20 years -- dating back for me from about 1993 to the present...after my own theoretical learnings and therapeutic experiences within The Adlerian Institute (1980-81), and The Gestalt Institute of Toronto (1979-1991).
Thus, I had already established significant outside influences in Humanistic-Existential Philosophy and Psychology (including my learnings from The University of Waterloo between 1974 and 1979) before I started to seriously focus in the early 1990s until now on the study of Psychoanalysis.
In essence, what I am offering up below is my 'bridge' between Masson and The Psychoanalytic Establishment -- which at least on the surface of things -- neither of the two opposing conflicted sides from the 1980s seems to be remotely interested in coming to any kind of 'creative compromise-agreement' and/or 'aggreement to disagree' relative to what I call 'The Controversy and The Psychoanalytic Dissociation Caused by The Freudian Wall of post-1896'.
One psychoanalytic thinker -- I think it was Stekel -- wrote that 'all fear is ultimately a fear of death.' (I think that Freud disagreed with that assertion -- thought that it essentially had no meaning.) I would add that some fears have much to do with the fear of injury, and perhaps even more importantly, 'fear of self-esteem or narcissistic-egotistical injury': more specifically, fear of failure, looking foolish, social dissociation, self-dissociation, self-rejection, inferiority feelings, self-hate, not being as 'brilliant in reality as one projected from one's own fantasy life'....in other words, 'opening up the curtains of one's own self-delusions'...and bearing the consequences of not meeting one's own lofty expectations...
This is where one simply has to 'existentially jump' from the cliff of 'non-being' onto the 'tightrope of Nietzschean risking' as one climbs or walks the tightrope, and looks (or doesn't look) down at the 'existential abyss looming far down below' of potentially perceived 'acute' failure, shock, panic, despair, and/or more 'chronic' guilt, anxiety, and/or depresssion...
To repeat, in the context of 'Pre-Classical' (pre-1897) vs. 'Classical' (post-1896) Psychoanalysis, what I do differently than what Freud did starting in the winter of 1895-1896 is, I utilize the working premise and assumption of The Hegelian Dialectic, indeed, 'The Multi-Dialectic-Pluralistic-Integrative' premise.
This means that I embrace contradiction in the fashion that Hegel taught us how to embrace contradiction -- and then creatively integrate and synergize the opposite polarities on the spectrum of this seeming contradiction that 'respects and values both opposite polarities as being essential to the nature of the same 'bi-polar truth, value, homeostatic balance, harmony, and co-existence'. Both bipolar truths are essential to the same dialectical spectrum-process...
In this type of 'bipolar or multi-bipolar theory building', we have an important method by which to more 'accurately and functionally build our concepts, theories, paradigms, so that they more 'structurally and dynamically represent the actual structures, characteristics, and dynamics of nature.
In physics, just as Freud was 'locked in internal conflict' weighing between his 1893-96 'reality-traumacy-seduction theories' and his newly arising 'childhood sexuality, fantasy, and Oedipal theories', and finally opting for the latter theoretical triad', so too was physics 'locked in internal conflict' between its previous 'particle theory of energy', its later 'wave theory of energy' -- neither of the two which were completely appropriate and functional in their 'representative predictions'; this being the case, physicists finally worked themselves out of this theoretical conundrum and logjam and created the 'dialectically integrative and synergetic theory' of 'particle-wave theory' -- which became the beginning of 'Quantum Physics'....and physics has never looked back since... Add a little 'Chaos Theory' to further synthesize and synergize Quantum Theory into 'Quantum-Chaos Theory' which has attracted me to the name of 'DGB Quantum-Chaos Psychoanalytic and Post-Psychoanalytic Theory'...and maybe that will give you an abstract, general idea of the direction I am travelling here -- or maybe not.
Contradistinctively, psychoanalytic thinkers have always looked back -- back to the winter and spring of 1895-1896 -- because the Freudian conundrum/impasse/ logjam of 'The Rising Childhood Sexuality-Fantasy-Oedipal Theory Triad' vs. The Falling 'Reality-Traumacy-Seduction Theory Triad' was never -- and still has never been -- properly resolved.
The reason: Because no psychoanalytic thinker (until me) has approached the controversy as being a 'dialectical problem' that needs to be worked out dialectically, interactively, integratively, and synergetically as 'two opposites truths on the same bipolar, dialectic spectrum' that are indeed, oftentimes, integratively and/or dysfunctionally-dissociatively 'meshed together' in our own personal, clinical realities -- both 'the reality/traumacy' and the 'compensatory/defensive fantasy' co-exist together in the 'same chldhood and adulthood transference template-complex'.
In adulthood, I call these 'symptom formations' -- 'TICs' which stands for 'Transference-Immediacy Constructions (or Complexes)'.
A therapist can use these TICs or 'TIPs' (Transference-Immediacy-Projections) or 'TIPS' (Transference-Immediacy-Projective-Sublimations') as a part of what Freud called the 'Royal Road To The Unconscious' which in this context means the 'Royal Road Backwards Into Our Childhood Traumacy-Fantasy, Paradoxical, Conflicted, Transference Templates'...
At this point, I will suggest that you either read my earlier paper, 'The First True Case of Psychoanalysis', or read it after this essay as an addendum.
At this point also, I will introduce and 'introject' some Adlerian Theory relative to the 'interpretation of conscious early memories' as 'lifestyle memories' into my own breed of highly unorthodox integrative GestaltAdlerian-Psychoanalytic (GAP) thinking, which in turn introduces my highly unorthodox concept of 'transference memories' or 'transference-lifestyle memories' which also can be interpreted from the same conscious early childhood memories in all of our unique, individual lives that Adlerians use in their diagnosis of a particular client's 'lifestyle (template/complex)' -- meaning our own earliest conscious childhood memories if we ever walked into an Adlerian Therapist's office (as I have).
A person's earliest conscious memory can, generally speaking, in my language here, be viewed as his or her most important -- i.e., diagnostically most fruitful -- transference (TM) or transference-lifestyle memory (TLM) and resulting 're-creation and repetition compulsions' such as TICs, TIPs, and TIPS.
A schizophrenic person's hallucinations can be diagnostically view and utilized as a TIP (in the sense defined above).
We might also consider utilizing the term 'SHIE (i.e., Shadow-Superego-Id-Ego) Compromise-Formations and/or Complex-Compulsions' which are highly likely to be integrated or 'meshed' with Transference-Immediacy Projections (TIPs)...
In my day-to-day experiences and communications with 'autistically diagnosed young men and women', and a 'Down Syndrome' young woman, I have come to view their 'repetitive phrases' as 'repetition TIP compulsions' -- meaning that these repetitive phrases can be viewd as 'the conflicted symptom' within which 'transference and immediacy material converge in a narcissistically fixated manner' harking back in a re-awakened format to some earlier 'unfinished situation' (Perls, Gestalt Therapy).
Hallucinations, repetitive phases, hysterical and obsessional body symptoms, dreams, fantasies, nightmares, jokes, sarcasm, choices of profession, essays, books, artistic creations...can all be viewed as 'TIPs' and/or as 'Allusions to Transference-Immediacy Compromises' meaning that these 'potential diagnostic symptoms' can all be viewed as both 'hiding and alluding to a combination of transference and immediacy material'.
The relationship between a therapist and his or her client/patient -- this is not a transference relationship but rather a 'transference-immediacy' relationship that both borrows from the past and projects the past into the present while at the same time processing the relevancy of the immediacy of the present into the 'transference psychodynamics of the past'.
Unconsciously, the client is thinking, 'Does this therapist of mine in the here and now remind me of my 'most relevant and loved/hated/rejecting/exciting childhood transference figure/object? Or not? Can I find some way of intertwining the two of them together such that my therapist becomes a 'surrogate projective reincarnation' of my early childhood transference object? Or not? Can I 'earn' the type of love from this adult transference figure that I never properly got from my early childhood rejecting transference figure/object?
In terms of 'counter-transference', the same process -- albeit perhaps more consciously -- is also likely going on inside the therapist's mind in a way that may or may not trigger transference reactions on the part of the therapist as well....positive and/or negative, love and/or hate...
Much is changing in Psychoanalyis, even as some seek to hold onto the past.
Is psychoanalysis considering getting rid of the famous Freudian 'couch'? Have some psychoanalysts already gotten rid of it? Is the 'Oedipal Complex' still a viable concept, or is it not? Has 'traumacy theory' become central to Psychoanalysis again, or has it not? How do you integrate 'traumacy (reality, seduction) theory' with 'fantasy (childhood sexuality) theory'? Or do you? Do psychoanalysts still have to choose one or the either? Or can they pick and choose one or the other relative to the context of the client and the case they are dealing with? Or does a psychoanalyst have to pick between being 'either/or' a Classical Psychoanalyst or an Object Relationist? Or a Lacanian Psychoanalyst? Or a Bionian Psychoanalyst? Or a Kohutian Self-Psychologist?
Can a psychoanalyst choose on a whim, or on an educated surmisal, to be a Classical Psychoanalyst in one client case, a Self Psychologist in another case, an Object Relationist in another case, a Bionian in another case, a Lacanian in another?...Or even, more liberally and more flexibly, make these types of 'theoretical or paradigm choices' moment by moment, depending on the type of clinical material that is reaching the Psychoanalysts eyes and/or ears? Can a psychoanalyst become an 'eclectic psychoanalyst' within his own school of psychology -- with so many different 'sub-schools' of psychoanalysis arising within psychoanalysis, just like within clinical psychology in general?
Here is the thing. Theories are by definition speculative generalizations of some portion of reality. They are always going to be partly wrong. Theorists -- they often tend to get so caught up in whatever theory has them 'wrapped up in a passionate ball and frenzy' that they forget that theories are not facts; they are generalized 'models' or 'maps' of reality that all have 'dead ends' -- or meet with dead ends -- somewhere in life's most perplexing and/or chaotic moments', and/or at the point that another concept, another theory, another paradigm, another map or model, might better 'explain' or 'help us to understand' the same 'life moment or experience or event or reality' that the first theory has reached a 'dead end' against.
Those theorists who continue to use their 'narcissistically and/or righteously bound or cathected theory' in an area of life where theory no no longer works, for lack of a better description, can be called 'dead end theorists'. Like lemmings, they chase their 'narcissistically cathected and fixated theory' over the proverbial cliff...
Freud was such a theorist -- wound up tighter in his own theories than a child's spinning top. Unable and/or unwilling to 'think outside of his own theoretical boxes'....
Which, of course, drove many of his co-workers crazy (loosely speaking) -- Adler, Rank, Stekel, Jung...who saw some things quite differently, created different theories, based on a combination of their own experiences, influences, and no doubt 'unique, personal transference material' -- only to be shut out and shut down (or so he tried) by Freud for 'thinking wild, unorthodox, unFreudian, thoughts and theories'...
From the counter-Freudian foundational premises of Freud's co-workers and ex-co-workers, I posit that we all have to learn -- if we have not already -- how to be accountable and responsible for our own Id impulses and their multi-faceted vicissitudes and compromise-formations...not determinisitically perceived as being like dandelions being blown around helplessly by the wind...or like driftwood floating on an ocean of discontent...
We all need to learn how to better embrace our biological-rational-empirical-romantic-spiritual nature and continue to find better and better ways to unite all these 'differerent and sometimes divided spirits' within us in a way that is worthy of a celebration of our own lives as well as a spreading 'Good Karma' to others...
Someone needs to make Classical Psychoanalysis more optimistic, more hopeful, more romantic, more spiritual, more humanistic-existential, more dialectically integrated, more pluralistic, more available to the middle class -- and in this regard, someone needs to go back into Classical Psychoanalysis and rattle its walls, shake down its assumptive foundation...
Potentially creative classical psychoanalysts are 'hog-tied' -- they cannot touch Classical Psychoanalysis because it is not to be touched except within the boundaries of orthodox Freudian boundaries. Thus, we see it slowly die, mummified by Psychoanalytic leaders in the same tradition as the 'very anal-retientive' Freuds themselves -- i.e., the Master and his daughter -- and unless someone at the top of the Psychoanalytic Establishment Hierarchy is prepared to 'open up the windows' of the Freud House (in Masson's words), well, then, let's all have a ceremony and bury Classical Psychoanalysis...Because, as it stands, teetering in its Victorian Structure, like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it is no good for any clients in the 21st Century....it is perhaps more 'neurotic' and 'pathological' than any of its clients -- and it has been since Freud basically turned his back on his pre-1897 Reality-Traumacy-Seduction Theory....
Neurosis is generally traumatically based on exclusion, dissociation, suppression, repression, opression...
Well, if this is true, someone at the top of the Psychoanalytic Establishment needs to 'break down the 1897 Freudian Wall' -- like The Berlin Wall -- so that Pre-1897 Freudian Psychoanalysis is 'freed' from its post-1897 oppression...
What Freud wrote before 1897 continues to come back to 'haunt' Classical Psychoanalysis, like the ghost of a murdered person, like the 'memory' and/or the 'id impulse' of a neurotically dissociated perosn....
Either bury Classical Psychoanalysis or free it....
And you can only 'free' it if or when the leaders of The Psychoanalytic Establishment stop treating Classical Psychoanalysis like it is priceless china from the Ming Dynasty...
Either that, or....
You have to get some clever, creative underground, unorthodox psychoanalytic thinker....
To show them how it is done...
I think that that is my calling card...
All theories have to come to a dead end sooner or later, and either die on the dead-end street,
Or the 'wall' of the theory at the dead-end of the theory has to be torn down, has to be 'deconstructed' and the 'road extended' ...into new conceptual-theoretical territory 'outside the box', on the 'other side of the dead end street'....
'Every theory carries the seeds of its own self-destruction.' -- Hegel.
'Until it meets its soul-mate -- the other half of its bipolar spectrum theory -- and engages, interacts, confronts, compromises, integrates, synergizes....in this manner it becomes reconstructed as a 'triangulation of truth' with fresh, new value, new meaning, a New Dialectic Path, on its way to interacting and integrating with Other Dialectic Paths....like the spokes meeting at the hub of a wheel...'The Multi-Dialectic-Pluralistic-Integrative-Synergetic Wheel' that keeps man and society propelling forward towards new Creative Solutions and Resolutions and 'Good Karma Evolution'; not 'Unilateral, Anally Constipated, I've Got Blinders On and I Can't See You, Bad Karma De-Evolution'...
Have I begun to successfully communicate this idea of 'Hegelian Dialectic Philosophy -- Reincarnated?
It is not new...
Just re-worked...
As Classical Psychoanalysis will be,
In the essays soon to come...
dgb, April 13th, 2013,
David Gordon Bain,
Dialectical Gap-Bridging Theories....
Are Still in Process...
