Interesting stuff as always, thank you Don. When thinking about free will and determinism, it seems to me that there is a connection to draw between this debate, and the ethical issue of responsibility for one's actions. Viewed in this context, we could see determinism as a kind of paranoid-schizoid rejection of the call to responsibility that is implied in working through the depressive position. It's a kind of flight from guilt, or guilt evasion. That is, if all of my actions are predetermined by some force that isn't of my making, I don't have to bear responsibility for any of them. Thus, there's no need to feel guilty about anything I have done. Also, I want to thank you for drawing attention to this issue the way you do in your talks and papers, it's an important and neglected issue.
In regard to Horney, read "Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing", by A.S. Neill (1960), with a forward by Erich Fromm (in case you haven't).
I have some knowledge of Sullivan and Fromm and am still reading Horney's work , what has hit me very hard is the "neurotic" core of the false self is responsible for most of our problems, although she doesn't say explicitly presumably as you are inferring due to our early socialized environment the psychic atmosphere the personalities of care givers even the hospital nurses, relatives and so forth and any sense of unmet need or trauma will create the conditions for the adapted child as Berne would say and the pseudo -adult . That is we will create an imaginary self a striving to become an idealized self , self-glorification ( seen obvioulsy in people who cling to roles or who believe themselves to be this or that type of person and pride in all of this , "look mummy what I can do , rather than I need and yearn for emotional and physical nurturing that was originally unavailble , in the hope this new me will be good enough . She spectacularly and in great depth analyses the various configurations of this and it appears to me she is saying, neurosis is sin qua non the plight and the curse of the modern man( woman), that is to operate from this internally constructed false self-position, proud, vain , aggressive defensive position and believe at the same time i am being genuine and authentic, feelings have been excised or repressed, the internal conflicts originating from the child the earliest memories and re-emerging in traumatic episodes as an adult must not be allowed to surface, instead the false self or "neurotic" self takes over , creates a tragic existence for the person. In this we are unable to let go of our guard we are unable to "be" ( Fromms contrast having v/s being ) , we are trying to be someone or something we are not , because the internal conflict is too great , linked to the memory of original absence of caregiver , un met need trauma or even abuse , which forms the kernel of the transference. Such is the destructive or corrosive effect of this ubiquitous neurosis that it destroys our capacity for intimate in-depth , now centred being with ourselves and another, the type of relating one migth find in analyst and patient after years of therapy a knowing of self , a voluntary exposing , an excitement and anxiety in what might happen. This book has struck me so hard because i see this is the struggle, to allow feelings to come to the surface , to allow unconscious material to emerge, to be whole again, society in the main operates from this false self principle and government and systems are or have been formed out of it and inadvertently feed it , that is we are not encouraged to feel but just to do , follow protocols and everyone knows their place , seen in extreme in the rise of the Nazi's , in fundamentalist right wing groups , in cults under the sway of a narcissistic guru s( Da Free John whose writings are very intriguing) Early religious movements ( St Bernards classic 12 steps of humility and pride ) also strove to acknowledge pride the cement of the neuroses, she correctly calls this neurotic pride as it is based on an imaginary self , a facade that both the analyst and patient need to work on deconstructing as the opposite of natural humility without which there can be no genuine love , affection or tenderness, sympathy or empathy . That is why i feel this book hit me so hard it describes the (our) pathology of modern man , self-recrimination, disgust is its mirror image as deflated and humiliated as the real authentic self-sense is originally fused with this created one and later is seen to be somewhat other distant and there is a growing acknowledgement this isn't really me at all , for me this is the point of insight and breakthrough realizing i am somehow attached to a false self , but it isn't what or who i am ie a more open feeling present centred beingness can emerge as a way of functioning. The false cannot stand up in face of reality , hatred kicks in and in extreme cases suicidal ideation or classic statement such as "I know I'm ill l or a patient referring to themselves as a certain type ie depressive or religious person saying I'm a sinner, at depth the schizoid defence of the child and the deepest most resistant neurotic elements merge or at least that is my guess? Anyway, am just getting over a bad cold and haven't finished the book yet , it is a little overwhelming.One exp therapist said to me , they're meaning the great analytic thinkers created their theories out of their pathologies with the patient as the mirror maybe.
Thank you for this analysis. It appears for some the fear becomes the false self, it's the thoughts the person slips on so to speak like a garment, but when the fear and delusion you believe or wear informs you all the time or most the time or frequently, it becomes an obstruction. It's sort of like wearing visors or glasses but being unwilling to see that it's wearing the glasses that is destructing or distorting your vision, so one refuses to take the glasses off. But overall, I realize remove these fears is not often as easy as removing a garment, as as you have said, does require a measure of humility, ability or will to question one's view or responses, and exercising willingness and courage to change. I will continue to reflect on your words as knowing willingness or pause or wonder to elements like self recrimination, is along the corrective or developmental path of change. I do believe this journey requires an ability or willingness to sort of undress then later be willing to redress your mind (mind and inner affects) in a novel, healthier direction or way than one has become wired, accustomed or adapted to. And what funny is with self recrimination, it's like confessing one needs to stop, find a different healthier or useful solace of thought when one knows they are accustomed to private self recriminations, at least once if not several times a day. With recriminations, it's like telling someone to put the gun down, stop firing the bullets or practice attempting to fire or pull the trigger less. Also as stated, finding or discovering and learning a different pattern of being and a different pattern of receiving the outer world, is a practice - one may not naturally or innately have the skills to do beyond their patterned repressions
Thank you, Mr. Carveth! I have a question: Do you see any overlapping of Fromm‘s ideas about love (as developed in ‚The Art of Loving’) and your own conception of conscience?
I was wondering whether you could do a video on (the role of) enactment. I'm presently taking a course in relational psychoanalysis, and the view there is that enactments are inevitable and that the analysis of enactments could (therefore, possibly) be the most healing component of a treatment. It's a compelling argument because it seems reasonable to me that there really is no true 'fully analyzed' and that we all get caught up until we wake up. Other elements of relational psychoanalysis may be criticized but this focus on enactments seems to be very fruitful. As they describe the development of psychoanalysis (and maybe it's funny it is thought about as a development at all) from classical to Kleinian to British Object-relations to relational, they consider the therapist to be more and more part of the relational matrix, with an equally increasing focus on countertransference and ultimately enactments. I wonder how you see the importance of enactments and whether you consider them to indeed be inevitable (and what that means for treatment), how you see this shift of focus as psychoanalysis changed, and how you see this sort of equating of theoretical orientation and clinical orientation. I know you've said you are a pretty active analyst and you get criticized for it by other analysts. It is interesting that it seems to be the case that there is always this split between on the one hand one's theoretical frame, and on the other hand one's clinical approach with that frame in the back of the mind (not to mention that I think few analysts are 'pure' in any kind of frame).
I fear that seeing enactments are inevitable can read analysts to take care not to enact them. I agree they are inevitable, but they should be kept to a minimum. If they happen the analysis of them can be very useful. The point of having a frame is to be able to measure deviations from it. Some relational analysts seem more interested in enactments then in analysis. Good analysis often makes enactments minimal.
Am almost at the end alot of pre-employment checks for basic level M Health nursing back to the beginning again, but it appears to me there are discrepancies in her work or rather what is the difference between the statement Jesus is supposed to have made ie be perfect, or various other scriptural and spiritual teachings which seem to evoke the same idealized self, there must be a way round this, ie inspiration is totally different from trying to be perfect or worse i should be perfect etc.I have a predilection for a transcendental or spiritual way of seeing things Also, my predicament is "resignation-rebellion" that is we all have neurotic tendencies an inability to bear the internal conflict, the cold shower analogy is a good one authentically no , it is horrible but 2-3 years in I know it is good for me so I allow the initial what St Paul would call nat response and then the other desire , neuroses wouldd block either of these or both ? Similarly, we are told mainstream conventional spirituality says self-interest isn't good, for me there is a thin line between self-obsession definitely part of the grandiose neurotic movement, the resigned victim , mummy I am ill i need attention and don't want to go to school etc , the problem seems to be in allowing it all up,, when the adapted neurotic part is triggered heavily we have a psychotic adaption rre : ua-cam.com/video/AL5noVCpVKw/v-deo.html Again Society is geared towards a hierarchical and arbitrary way of dealing with people, rules are rules and thus "neurotic adaption seems almost hardwired into our brains" as if the fusion when complete creates the ideal "good" citizen or good little boy , produce x, do as you're told , don't get angry, never tell the teacher to f..., today it has swung in the opposite direction but the core remains untouched, it is corroding the very fabric of society in this respect I feel she is as a significant contributor to analytic theory as was Freud , lastly Jesus's teachings for me remain amongst this testimony to what KH was saying in that he stipulated I come not to break the law but to complete it , ie once the internal is set right or the compass needle is pointing towards the "real- self" then faith alone suffices and all works for good, for me this is the zenith or end of evolution, beyond the mind, but the obstacle is as KH says the tangle weed of neuroses which at any moment vis threatening to catch us up. I may be way of or you do not agree, i know you have a negative bias towards "religion" or do i read this incorrectly. I remember what m,y therapist used to say so many very heavy duty anger workshops down the line the pendulum then starts to swing the other way until it finds equilibrium, prior to this neurotic blocks would destroy health ie repressed anger is symptomatic of this terrible social disease, passive-aggressive controlling and a host of sick ways of interacting, self-glorification at the neat way it is all bundled up , until the oither is nothing but a bag into which we deposit our negative projections until thye deserve to be hurt , killed , raped tortured and so on and the endless justifications just lastly a lecture in Mere last year on how Eichmann thought what he was doing was use full and efficient this is how dangerous "neurosis" actually is , isn't it !
As usual great video With this information I wonder how you would counter the neurosci / materialist arguments that we have no free will? Could we say our not-knowing equates to virtual free will, the kind relevant to judgment of behavior? I would love to see the free will arguments drawn out into their existential or practical consequences...but obviously that's enother video or perhaps another subject entirely!
All I can say is that those philosophers, neuroscientists, behaviourists who argue there is no free will order at the same time holding their spouses, their children, and perhaps even themselves responsible and a whole host of Waze.
@@doncarveth I'm really enjoying your thoughtful UA-cam presentations. I was struck in this piece by a sense of a metaphysical Kleinian interpretation: The Paranoid Biologism ~ The Schizoid Sociologism ~ and the Depressive Existentialism. How Existentialism holds the Nature ~ Nurture split in a dynamic tension, allowing for the potential of both 'part truths' to emerge into a 'whole truth' . From a 'being' to a 'becoming'.
@@doncarveth My thinking is purposefully a right brain, broad brush strokes picture (ref. Dr Iain McGilcrist's work, The Master and his Emissary ) . My thoughts: Schizoid as a dualism = self/society. Paranoid as a monism = self.
@@doncarveth thank you for the timely response. Great video. I agree with what you say about Fromm, but he was for a dictatorship of the proletariat wasn’t he? Not totalitarianism?
I have to say, I think this is wonderful...bringing together psychoanalysis, philosophy, human development and biology. So very rare in this world.
Thank you
Interesting stuff as always, thank you Don.
When thinking about free will and determinism, it seems to me that there is a connection to draw between this debate, and the ethical issue of responsibility for one's actions. Viewed in this context, we could see determinism as a kind of paranoid-schizoid rejection of the call to responsibility that is implied in working through the depressive position. It's a kind of flight from guilt, or guilt evasion. That is, if all of my actions are predetermined by some force that isn't of my making, I don't have to bear responsibility for any of them. Thus, there's no need to feel guilty about anything I have done.
Also, I want to thank you for drawing attention to this issue the way you do in your talks and papers, it's an important and neglected issue.
Agreed, thanks
As alway, really nice job of discussing these three very significant figures in our field.
Thanks
In regard to Horney, read "Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing", by A.S. Neill (1960), with a forward by Erich Fromm (in case you haven't).
I have some knowledge of Sullivan and Fromm and am still reading Horney's work , what has hit me very hard is the "neurotic" core of the false self is responsible for most of our problems, although she doesn't say explicitly presumably as you are inferring due to our early socialized environment the psychic atmosphere the personalities of care givers even the hospital nurses, relatives and so forth and any sense of unmet need or trauma will create the conditions for the adapted child as Berne would say and the pseudo -adult .
That is we will create an imaginary self a striving to become an idealized self , self-glorification ( seen obvioulsy in people who cling to roles or who believe themselves to be this or that type of person and pride in all of this , "look mummy what I can do , rather than I need and yearn for emotional and physical nurturing that was originally unavailble , in the hope this new me will be good enough .
She spectacularly and in great depth analyses the various configurations of this and it appears to me she is saying, neurosis is sin qua non the plight and the curse of the modern man( woman), that is to operate from this internally constructed false self-position, proud, vain , aggressive defensive position and believe at the same time i am being genuine and authentic, feelings have been excised or repressed, the internal conflicts originating from the child the earliest memories and re-emerging in traumatic episodes as an adult must not be allowed to surface, instead the false self or "neurotic" self takes over , creates a tragic existence for the person.
In this we are unable to let go of our guard we are unable to "be" ( Fromms contrast having v/s being ) , we are trying to be someone or something we are not , because the internal conflict is too great , linked to the memory of original absence of caregiver , un met need trauma or even abuse , which forms the kernel of the transference.
Such is the destructive or corrosive effect of this ubiquitous neurosis that it destroys our capacity for intimate in-depth , now centred being with ourselves and another, the type of relating one migth find in analyst and patient after years of therapy a knowing of self , a voluntary exposing , an excitement and anxiety in what might happen.
This book has struck me so hard because i see this is the struggle, to allow feelings to come to the surface , to allow unconscious material to emerge, to be whole again, society in the main operates from this false self principle and government and systems are or have been formed out of it and inadvertently feed it , that is we are not encouraged to feel but just to do , follow protocols and everyone knows their place , seen in extreme in the rise of the Nazi's , in fundamentalist right wing groups , in cults under the sway of a narcissistic guru s( Da Free John whose writings are very intriguing)
Early religious movements ( St Bernards classic 12 steps of humility and pride ) also strove to acknowledge pride the cement of the neuroses, she correctly calls this neurotic pride as it is based on an imaginary self , a facade that both the analyst and patient need to work on deconstructing as the opposite of natural humility without which there can be no genuine love , affection or tenderness, sympathy or empathy .
That is why i feel this book hit me so hard it describes the (our) pathology of modern man , self-recrimination, disgust is its mirror image as deflated and humiliated as the real authentic self-sense is originally fused with this created one and later is seen to be somewhat other distant and there is a growing acknowledgement this isn't really me at all , for me this is the point of insight and breakthrough realizing i am somehow attached to a false self , but it isn't what or who i am ie a more open feeling present centred beingness can emerge as a way of functioning.
The false cannot stand up in face of reality , hatred kicks in and in extreme cases suicidal ideation or classic statement such as "I know I'm ill l or a patient referring to themselves as a certain type ie depressive or religious person saying I'm a sinner, at depth the schizoid defence of the child and the deepest most resistant neurotic elements merge or at least that is my guess?
Anyway, am just getting over a bad cold and haven't finished the book yet , it is a little overwhelming.One exp therapist said to me , they're meaning the great analytic thinkers created their theories out of their pathologies with the patient as the mirror maybe.
Thank you for this analysis. It appears for some the fear becomes the false self, it's the thoughts the person slips on so to speak like a garment, but when the fear and delusion you believe or wear informs you all the time or most the time or frequently, it becomes an obstruction. It's sort of like wearing visors or glasses but being unwilling to see that it's wearing the glasses that is destructing or distorting your vision, so one refuses to take the glasses off. But overall, I realize remove these fears is not often as easy as removing a garment, as as you have said, does require a measure of humility, ability or will to question one's view or responses, and exercising willingness and courage to change. I will continue to reflect on your words as knowing willingness or pause or wonder to elements like self recrimination, is along the corrective or developmental path of change. I do believe this journey requires an ability or willingness to sort of undress then later be willing to redress your mind (mind and inner affects) in a novel, healthier direction or way than one has become wired, accustomed or adapted to. And what funny is with self recrimination, it's like confessing one needs to stop, find a different healthier or useful solace of thought when one knows they are accustomed to private self recriminations, at least once if not several times a day. With recriminations, it's like telling someone to put the gun down, stop firing the bullets or practice attempting to fire or pull the trigger less. Also as stated, finding or discovering and learning a different pattern of being and a different pattern of receiving the outer world, is a practice - one may not naturally or innately have the skills to do beyond their patterned repressions
Thank you Don will watch this later , it's a totally incredible book. Sorry attempted a lenghty detailed reply butt upload circle refuses to load
Thank you, Mr. Carveth! I have a question: Do you see any overlapping of Fromm‘s ideas about love (as developed in ‚The Art of Loving’) and your own conception of conscience?
Yes, very much so. Call it the spirit of love, or call it conscience, or call it the voice of Jesus.
I was wondering whether you could do a video on (the role of) enactment. I'm presently taking a course in relational psychoanalysis, and the view there is that enactments are inevitable and that the analysis of enactments could (therefore, possibly) be the most healing component of a treatment. It's a compelling argument because it seems reasonable to me that there really is no true 'fully analyzed' and that we all get caught up until we wake up. Other elements of relational psychoanalysis may be criticized but this focus on enactments seems to be very fruitful. As they describe the development of psychoanalysis (and maybe it's funny it is thought about as a development at all) from classical to Kleinian to British Object-relations to relational, they consider the therapist to be more and more part of the relational matrix, with an equally increasing focus on countertransference and ultimately enactments. I wonder how you see the importance of enactments and whether you consider them to indeed be inevitable (and what that means for treatment), how you see this shift of focus as psychoanalysis changed, and how you see this sort of equating of theoretical orientation and clinical orientation. I know you've said you are a pretty active analyst and you get criticized for it by other analysts. It is interesting that it seems to be the case that there is always this split between on the one hand one's theoretical frame, and on the other hand one's clinical approach with that frame in the back of the mind (not to mention that I think few analysts are 'pure' in any kind of frame).
I fear that seeing enactments are inevitable can read analysts to take care not to enact them. I agree they are inevitable, but they should be kept to a minimum. If they happen the analysis of them can be very useful. The point of having a frame is to be able to measure deviations from it. Some relational analysts seem more interested in enactments then in analysis. Good analysis often makes enactments minimal.
We are condemned to be free
Am almost at the end alot of pre-employment checks for basic level M Health nursing back to the beginning again, but it appears to me there are discrepancies in her work or rather what is the difference between the statement Jesus is supposed to have made ie be perfect, or various other scriptural and spiritual teachings which seem to evoke the same idealized self, there must be a way round this, ie inspiration is totally different from trying to be perfect or worse i should be perfect etc.I have a predilection for a transcendental or spiritual way of seeing things
Also, my predicament is "resignation-rebellion" that is we all have neurotic tendencies an inability to bear the internal conflict, the cold shower analogy is a good one authentically no , it is horrible but 2-3 years in I know it is good for me so I allow the initial what St Paul would call nat response and then the other desire , neuroses wouldd block either of these or both ? Similarly, we are told mainstream conventional spirituality says self-interest isn't good, for me there is a thin line between self-obsession definitely part of the grandiose neurotic movement, the resigned victim , mummy I am ill i need attention and don't want to go to school etc , the problem seems to be in allowing it all up,, when the adapted neurotic part is triggered heavily we have a psychotic adaption rre :
ua-cam.com/video/AL5noVCpVKw/v-deo.html
Again Society is geared towards a hierarchical and arbitrary way of dealing with people, rules are rules and thus "neurotic adaption seems almost hardwired into our brains" as if the fusion when complete creates the ideal "good" citizen or good little boy , produce x, do as you're told , don't get angry, never tell the teacher to f..., today it has swung in the opposite direction but the core remains untouched, it is corroding the very fabric of society in this respect I feel she is as a significant contributor to analytic theory as was Freud , lastly Jesus's teachings for me remain amongst this testimony to what KH was saying in that he stipulated I come not to break the law but to complete it , ie once the internal is set right or the compass needle is pointing towards the "real- self" then faith alone suffices and all works for good, for me this is the zenith or end of evolution, beyond the mind, but the obstacle is as KH says the tangle weed of neuroses which at any moment vis threatening to catch us up.
I may be way of or you do not agree, i know you have a negative bias towards "religion" or do i read this incorrectly.
I remember what m,y therapist used to say so many very heavy duty anger workshops down the line the pendulum then starts to swing the other way until it finds equilibrium, prior to this neurotic blocks would destroy health ie repressed anger is symptomatic of this terrible social disease, passive-aggressive controlling and a host of sick ways of interacting, self-glorification at the neat way it is all bundled up , until the oither is nothing but a bag into which we deposit our negative projections until thye deserve to be hurt , killed , raped tortured and so on and the endless justifications just lastly a lecture in Mere last year on how Eichmann thought what he was doing was use full and efficient this is how dangerous "neurosis" actually is , isn't it !
Where is Alfred Adler in all this? Wasn't he a major influence on these thinkers?
Perhaps. Not sure about “major“…
As usual great video
With this information I wonder how you would counter the neurosci / materialist arguments that we have no free will? Could we say our not-knowing equates to virtual free will, the kind relevant to judgment of behavior? I would love to see the free will arguments drawn out into their existential or practical consequences...but obviously that's enother video or perhaps another subject entirely!
All I can say is that those philosophers, neuroscientists, behaviourists who argue there is no free will order at the same time holding their spouses, their children, and perhaps even themselves responsible and a whole host of Waze.
@@doncarveth I'm really enjoying your thoughtful UA-cam presentations.
I was struck in this piece by a sense of a metaphysical Kleinian interpretation:
The Paranoid Biologism ~ The Schizoid Sociologism ~ and the Depressive Existentialism.
How Existentialism holds the Nature ~ Nurture split in a dynamic tension, allowing for the potential of both 'part truths' to emerge into a 'whole truth' .
From a 'being' to a 'becoming'.
Interesting dialectical thoughts, but I’m not sure how sociologism is associated with schizoid.
@@doncarveth My thinking is purposefully a right brain, broad brush strokes picture (ref. Dr Iain McGilcrist's work, The Master and his Emissary ) .
My thoughts:
Schizoid as a dualism = self/society.
Paranoid as a monism = self.
Carl T ok, I see
Who mentioned that sociology is anti-psychology?
Emile Durkheim
@@doncarveth thank you for the timely response. Great video. I agree with what you say about Fromm, but he was for a dictatorship of the proletariat wasn’t he? Not totalitarianism?
From was a democratic socialist, a humanistic Marxist
@@doncarveth I agree. In the video you mention totalitarianism and I was surprised. His book escape from freedom is a masterpiece