Prof. Carveth, it's indeed a wonderful illustration of the 2 approaches. Touching upon existentialism & incorporating within unconscious decoding is extremely pertinent in your presentation. Thanks Sir🙏😊
Can one say that the infant is responding on instincts and when the person evovles drives is the more accurate description. Does an infant "choose" how to respond too?
6:18 humans use zones, modes and modalities for relatedness (sexual but also maybe asexually too). Interpretive lens to think of for applying Eric Erickson to relational working with clients
Speaking of dreams: A few nights ago I dreamt I was at an airport sitting at a high, round table with a female friend. We were looking out to the tarmac, waiting for a plane to land so that we could take off on it. Then, a woman comes to our table presenting us with a paper plate of warm bread and butter. I looked at my friend, smiling, and said, "oh! you must have an admirer." When I awakened my first thought/association was that my conscious and my unconscious selves were presenting themselves to me. What else could this dream be saying? I have a couple of ideas that I'm just tossing around.
Hi Dr. Carveth. I've personally been very intrigued by Edgar Levenson and Philip Bromberg. Could you make a video with your reflection on their takes to analysis?
Another thing. You spoke about how analyst and patient do not contribute equally, and the focus should be on the patient. It seems to me that these are actually two distinct issues. Equal contribution might be unavoidable and unintentional, and the focus of the exploration might still be the patient’s dynamics. I think many people are more perceptive even than they realise themselves, and can deduce a lot from very little. Sure there's projection in there. But a lot of it is also true, and the most relevant question might be how the patient can be helped to experience whatever they find troubling about you or the interaction with you as less troubling and more manageable. There's real danger in "blaming", even implicitly, the patient for their distorted views and projections, and it's a very convenient defense for the analyst to not feel so naked and out in the open to put perceptions on the patient as opposed to taking them in, and then basically going "but so what? What makes this so troubling for you?" Curious about your thoughts on this, as admittedly I'm very inexperienced and this is where my thinking has gone coming from a pretty classical stance initially (and having had some rebellious mentors and supervisors).
jackdawcaw I do not believe I said analyst and patient do not contribute equally, only if the focus is mainly on the patient’s contribution. The patient is paying to be psychoanalyzed, not to psychoanalyze the analyst. The analyst is analyzed by his own analyst. Of course the analyst brings his psyche to the encounter with the analyst David. Sometimes the patient distorts, sometimes the analyst distorts. Sometimes the patient can correct the analysts distortions. But the focus remains on the patient. In his private study of his counter transference the analyst analyzes the distortions arising from his own psyche. I’ve laid all of this out in detail in a chapter of my 2018 book, The chapter which is an extensive critique of Stoll Row and Atwood.
Don Carveth at 28:00 you said you have a problem with Co-construction and that the production is not a 50/50 production. I understood you to be talking about the production of the whole experience, I.e. equal contribution. I've personally not seen equal analysis between patient and therapist but obviously that could be my lack of knowledge. I know Ferenczi did some of that but I think generally in the interpersonal tradition it is frowned upon, although a degree of revelation is supported by some, which does again set it apart from the more traditional work.
Dr. Carveth, What can make psychoanalysis relevant and topical, even urgent, in our times? My amateur view is that the periods during which psychoanalysis became important source of "soul-searching" in XX century were periods after the WWI and then WWII. So do we, as a society, need a real shake-up and a real reminder of cruelty and pain within each of us in order to re-appreciate the relevance of psychoanalysis in our lives? And, BTW: thanks a lot for posting a new set of your great videos!
SK you may be right, but more broadly with the Frankfurt school I think a process of cultural regression has been going on for sometime leading to an increasingly soul less condition. People are increasingly concrete, wanting quick fixes, not comprehending the human condition as one of radical imperfection and intrinsic conflict. This mindset does not fit well with psychoanalysis.
All above notwithstanding, isn't it curious that two of the arguably most severe personality disorders - Borderline PD and Narcissistic PD - can be treated using Mentalization Based Therapy (Fonagy, Bateman, and others) and Transference Focused Psychotherapy (Kernberg, and others), both of which are psychodynamic and/or psychoanalytic in nature. According to Kernberg, even for Malignant Narcissism, opening people's eyes on the "mess" inside them, and getting them to own it and to still continue living is the stuff that can work. And you don't get that stuff from merely teaching people to behave; psychoanalytic soul-searching seems to be the only hope that has been found so far.
Maybe it is not that we are becoming soul-less, but rather that our souls (as kind of "transceivers" of communication with reality on the level of values, purposes and meaning) are getting polluted with cynicism, hopelessness or, at best, infantile giddiness. As individuals, many of us know that a life crisis can sometimes "unclog" the soul-system, so that we become again able to "smell the roses", and without our habitual eye-rolling at such notions. However, it is awfully hard, perhaps impossible, to develop and maintain an uncontaminated soul and to participate in a society system that cultivates mostly cynicism, hopelessness or giddiness. I suspect that if more people were aware of how much others yearn for life-meaning and no-bs mutual connection, and were not afraid to cast aside our usual masks that display only the crud accumulated in our souls - maybe then we would achieve a collective soul-cleansing, without a society-wide quake that would simply rip our masks off, whether we would want that or not...
The patient is the patient, lest you merge psychoanalysis with a person-centered hysteria. This idea of honored guest is the analysts countertransference as if the patient is some narcissistic father as that.
I’m binge watching your videos. We are fortunate to have you in our lives
Thank you for your kind words
Very interesting and insightful thoughts on this very important controversy within psychoanalysis. Thank you for your valuable contribution.
So grateful for your videos within my studies, and encouraged by your faith also. Thank you.
Samantha, thank you very much
I am gradually finding these videos a most helpful support in understanding the nature and history of psychotherapy/psychoanalysis. Well done Don!
Thank you.
Prof. Carveth, it's indeed a wonderful illustration of the 2 approaches. Touching upon existentialism & incorporating within unconscious decoding is extremely pertinent in your presentation. Thanks Sir🙏😊
Excellent and helpful thank you
I like the direction you are taking.
very interesting sr, thanks for sharing
Most welcome
19:27 this is exactly what I an thinking these days, as I was studying the Unabomber's Manifesto.
Can one say that the infant is responding on instincts and when the person evovles drives is the more accurate description. Does an infant "choose" how to respond too?
Without language or reason, I don’t think we can use the word “choose“.
Do you elaborate on Jessica Benjamin’s work in your videos?
Not in my videos, but I wrote a review. Check my York website under reviews.
6:18 humans use zones, modes and modalities for relatedness (sexual but also maybe asexually too). Interpretive lens to think of for applying Eric Erickson to relational working with clients
Speaking of dreams:
A few nights ago I dreamt I was at an airport sitting at a high, round table with a female friend. We were looking out to the tarmac, waiting for a plane to land so that we could take off on it. Then, a woman comes to our table presenting us with a paper plate of warm bread and butter. I looked at my friend, smiling, and said, "oh! you must have an admirer." When I awakened my first thought/association was that my conscious and my unconscious selves were presenting themselves to me. What else could this dream be saying? I have a couple of ideas that I'm just tossing around.
Hi Dr. Carveth. I've personally been very intrigued by Edgar Levenson and Philip Bromberg. Could you make a video with your reflection on their takes to analysis?
I hope to get around to that someday, thanks.
@@doncarveth Wonderful, I hope you do :-)
Another thing. You spoke about how analyst and patient do not contribute equally, and the focus should be on the patient. It seems to me that these are actually two distinct issues. Equal contribution might be unavoidable and unintentional, and the focus of the exploration might still be the patient’s dynamics. I think many people are more perceptive even than they realise themselves, and can deduce a lot from very little. Sure there's projection in there. But a lot of it is also true, and the most relevant question might be how the patient can be helped to experience whatever they find troubling about you or the interaction with you as less troubling and more manageable. There's real danger in "blaming", even implicitly, the patient for their distorted views and projections, and it's a very convenient defense for the analyst to not feel so naked and out in the open to put perceptions on the patient as opposed to taking them in, and then basically going "but so what? What makes this so troubling for you?" Curious about your thoughts on this, as admittedly I'm very inexperienced and this is where my thinking has gone coming from a pretty classical stance initially (and having had some rebellious mentors and supervisors).
jackdawcaw I do not believe I said analyst and patient do not contribute equally, only if the focus is mainly on the patient’s contribution. The patient is paying to be psychoanalyzed, not to psychoanalyze the analyst. The analyst is analyzed by his own analyst. Of course the analyst brings his psyche to the encounter with the analyst David. Sometimes the patient distorts, sometimes the analyst distorts. Sometimes the patient can correct the analysts distortions. But the focus remains on the patient. In his private study of his counter transference the analyst analyzes the distortions arising from his own psyche. I’ve laid all of this out in detail in a chapter of my 2018 book, The chapter which is an extensive critique of Stoll Row and Atwood.
Don Carveth at 28:00 you said you have a problem with Co-construction and that the production is not a 50/50 production. I understood you to be talking about the production of the whole experience, I.e. equal contribution. I've personally not seen equal analysis between patient and therapist but obviously that could be my lack of knowledge. I know Ferenczi did some of that but I think generally in the interpersonal tradition it is frowned upon, although a degree of revelation is supported by some, which does again set it apart from the more traditional work.
That diagram is really helpful
Dr. Carveth, What can make psychoanalysis relevant and topical, even urgent, in our times? My amateur view is that the periods during which psychoanalysis became important source of "soul-searching" in XX century were periods after the WWI and then WWII. So do we, as a society, need a real shake-up and a real reminder of cruelty and pain within each of us in order to re-appreciate the relevance of psychoanalysis in our lives? And, BTW: thanks a lot for posting a new set of your great videos!
SK you may be right, but more broadly with the Frankfurt school I think a process of cultural regression has been going on for sometime leading to an increasingly soul less condition. People are increasingly concrete, wanting quick fixes, not comprehending the human condition as one of radical imperfection and intrinsic conflict. This mindset does not fit well with psychoanalysis.
All above notwithstanding, isn't it curious that two of the arguably most severe personality disorders - Borderline PD and Narcissistic PD - can be treated using Mentalization Based Therapy (Fonagy, Bateman, and others) and Transference Focused Psychotherapy (Kernberg, and others), both of which are psychodynamic and/or psychoanalytic in nature. According to Kernberg, even for Malignant Narcissism, opening people's eyes on the "mess" inside them, and getting them to own it and to still continue living is the stuff that can work. And you don't get that stuff from merely teaching people to behave; psychoanalytic soul-searching seems to be the only hope that has been found so far.
Well, I agree entirely, especially re TFP.
What created the soul that, as soul-study, psychoanalysis analyzed? Not two world wars. We had soul before that. But we are becoming soul-less. Why?
Maybe it is not that we are becoming soul-less, but rather that our souls (as kind of "transceivers" of communication with reality on the level of values, purposes and meaning) are getting polluted with cynicism, hopelessness or, at best, infantile giddiness. As individuals, many of us know that a life crisis can sometimes "unclog" the soul-system, so that we become again able to "smell the roses", and without our habitual eye-rolling at such notions. However, it is awfully hard, perhaps impossible, to develop and maintain an uncontaminated soul and to participate in a society system that cultivates mostly cynicism, hopelessness or giddiness. I suspect that if more people were aware of how much others yearn for life-meaning and no-bs mutual connection, and were not afraid to cast aside our usual masks that display only the crud accumulated in our souls - maybe then we would achieve a collective soul-cleansing, without a society-wide quake that would simply rip our masks off, whether we would want that or not...
Dialectical. Beyond the either or.
So what is it Professor psychoanalysis without the blank slate, merely call yourself a CBT therapist in use of a behavioral method.
Listen to more of my videos and podcasts
The patient is the patient, lest you merge psychoanalysis with a person-centered hysteria. This idea of honored guest is the analysts countertransference as if the patient is some narcissistic father as that.
:40 3 17