F&B 2017A The Unconscious

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Does anyone want to discover an updated interpretation of Freud and psychoanalysis? Prof. Sam Vaknin is wonderful. Genius.

[@psychnstatstutor]

So insightful and helpful for those of us wanting to learn more about depth psych theories~ cheers

[@daveclarke8899]

Trigger warning starts at 7:06

[@EMC2Scotia]

So what is the Lacanian criticism of Kleinians that rings the most true for you? Great series of lectures also, thanks for the uploads.

[@חנהיוגב]

everything is polarized now during the war. My country is in a very great suffering and turmoil, no DP at all

[@doncarveth]

That’s terrible, I’m sorry

[@czarquetzal8344]

Prof. Carveth, I hope that more people especially those who are studying behavioral science, will accept the fact that empiricism is destitute in terms of studying the human person. Personal question, Professor: Are you also Lacanian?

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Sam Vaknin gets Lacan, too. Orof. Vaknin is the new Freud.

[@nononouh]

38 49

[@leanmchungry4735]

The notion of the reified unconscious versus unconscious material,which is briefly discussed here, is an interesting puzzle. Is there evidence Freud reified the unconscious? The analyst Frank Summers in his book 'The Psychoanalytic Vision' cites Freud to support his notion there is no reified thing called the unconscious. Summer's claims Freud only wrote about unconscious psychic phenomena and unconscious motives and meanings but never of the thing, the unconscious. Is this an accurate representation of Freud?

[@deejarrett8291]

I am in the depressive position over everything. I can see both sides. I can see the good and the bad. But this is stressful and worrying. The good is always counteracted by the bad, and the bad is always counteracted by the good. Surely, we have to readjust our goals if we want a better society. We have to see that being neurotic is a terrible burden. We can't be expected to live like that all the time, some of us cannot endure that. We need the black and white of PS. What are the moral implications of your assertion, Professor Carveth, that the goal of human psychological and social development is the progression from PS to D if D causes such suffering? Brilliant lectures by the way.

[@doncarveth]

Dee, Klen did not see the depressive position as salvation. She spoke of the need to work through the depressive position because serious ÿneurotic psychopathology occurs there. While it is good to have achiieved ambivalence rather than being stuck in splitting, it is not good to be paralyzed with ambivalence, unable to take a stand, or make a decision, let alone recognize a predator or as such and take necessary steps to deal with it. Maturity involves creative oscillation between PS and D. Splitting is sometimes adaptive and ambivalence is sometimes maladaptive. That said, the position I have just described involves a higher order synthesis that recognizes the need for both PS and D functioning.

[@חנהיוגב]

An excellent and very in-depth lecture. A lot of complex issues came up. Need to hear it several times...the difference between Lacan and Klein, the goal of psychoanalysis, science versus non-science. it's really thought provoking.

[@doncarveth]

Thank you

[@webb8846]

I do agree with your assessment on how there's totalitarianism it seems like on the right and on the left it seems to me me being in America and I'm in an American college it seems like the totalitarianism is a Little bit stronger on the left just because it's infiltrated all of the universities

[@doncarveth]

Yes

[@SK_TorON]

Dr. Carveth, the opening of this lecture shows very clearly that there is only one way to strengthen society, and that is to strengthen individuals. That strength is, I think, the ability to bravely look inside ourselves and to see both an angel and a monster within. Perhaps, modern psychopathology is that weakness within us that cannot help externalizing the monster while pretending to be the angel only. Maybe "normalcy" is a so-rare these days ability to tolerate both good and bad with ourselves, and to keep learning to live with the inherent ambiguity of our nature.

[@doncarveth]

I fundamentally agree but I remain enough of a sociologist to feel that individuals can only become stronger in and through positive social relations. We need help from others to rise from PS splitting to D ambivalence and ambiguity. This hard to come by in a society that itself has regressed from D into PS.

[@SK_TorON]

Thank you for your reply, Dr. Carveth. I agree with you, and perhaps the notion of "individual" should be made clearer. Allow me to use what I have learned from Jordan B. Peterson's description of Piaget state of equilibrium in a social game. An individual's benefit here and now cannot be understood in isolation from society or from time. It's like those famous delayed gratification (marshmallow) experiments. It might feel good to be a jerk to your co-worker right this minute, but what about coming to work tomorrow without feeling ashamed or afraid? Occasional self-enhancing braggadocio might boost my fragile self-esteem, but what about ending up having nobody who knows real me? So, by a strong individual I mean an individual integrated in time and in society. Unfortunately, if a society riches a critical mass of structural pathology, then being integrated in it for any length of time might imply becoming a guard in a concentration camp... (And here I recall your lecture on Bion's group psychology, and this also ties up with your emphasis on the role of conscience as sometimes opposing the superego.) By the way, thank you so much for generously posting your thought-provoking lectures on KZbin. They have helped me tremendously to understand myself and others better.

[@doncarveth]

Yes, I think that is accurate re Freud, but others did reify it.

[@francescomanfredonia9095]

Dear Professor I am listening to your videos and I am very grateful for all I am learning and so many references to books and authors. I have not heard you mention Jung once. Is there a reason? Is he not psychoanalysis? Question is also personal in the sense that my analyst belongs to international Association for Jungian studies... Thanks Francesco

[@doncarveth]

Francesco, as you know, Freud and Jung parted company many years ago and ever since Freudians and Jungians rarely interact. I actually was interested in Jung very early on, but after beginning a Freudian analysis I came to feel that Jungians tended to kind of hold their noses and do a mad dash through what they call the shadow, the Freudian personal unconscious, in order to get to the so-called collective unconscious in which they are more interested in which I always found rather mystical and vague. In other words, I developed the rather typical anti-Jung bias characteristic of most Freudians. I have since come to recognize some valid contributions in the Jungians tradition and some ways in which Jung valid Lee correct some of the problems in Freudian thought. But I am not a Jung scholar. Thanks.

[@czarquetzal8344]

​@@doncarveththanks for clarifying your position, Sir. Jordan Peterson is, I believe, claiming to be Jungian but he misread Jung and Nietzsche, hehehehe. A true scholar should stop talking about a thinker unless he really understood that thinker. In that respect, I admire you.