Jason Aronson Press
p. 10-13 “The Doctor – Patient relationship is the central integrative feature in an ongoing broadly conceived treatment of a borderline patient. Everything else depends on it…. What do we mean when we talk of the doctor – patient relationship? … A relationship is not a thing. Rather, it is a process of a high order of complexity, with many different aspects high-lighted differently at different times. It changes. It rearranges. It can appear strikingly different at different times. … When we talk of the doctor-patient relationship, we are talking of the “back and forth” between the doctor and the patient, which takes place along a variety of channels. This “back and forth” has to do with words, looks, postural sets, and a whole series of cues that are interpreted, misinterpreted, and elaborated into fantasies, ideas, and actions by both parties. It is visceral. … It is the “back and forth” itself that is of the most fundamental importance and that serves to protect the flexibility and vitality of the treatment. … Relationship means repetitive meetings, separations, reunions. It means repetitive risks, and hopes, repetitive disillusionments and despairs, repetititve repairs and doubts, but, above all, repetitions. We intend the term repetition in the original etymological sense of trying over and over again.”
Karnac Books p. 332 “… Is not the current demand for sexual autonomy and equality an attempt, a crude beginning of the fusion between the good and the sexual woman, and an essay in the greater tolerance of ambivalence and ‘ugliness’ than the receding world of double standards knew? And are not our deprecated young non-heroes turning on the man-of-iron values that produced totalitarianisms, those monstrosities of male savagery, debunking them with jazz, ridicule and still rather shocking assertion of the primacy of Eros over Mars.
To the pious guardians of the medieval order also the resurrection of the pagan world and its sensual beauty was no renaissance … but the dissolution of all values and restraints. One of its effects was the full-scale collective paranoia of the witch-hunts to counter the threat of women’s power to control men’s libido. The battle has fluctuated since then roughly in centuries of libidinal and anti-libidinal prominence, at least in England, but the musty odour of St. Paul and St. Augustine of Hippo has lessened progressively as we have shed the constricting carapace of the medieval world view and let in the fresher air of natural science — even on the mysterious ways in which mankind is always trying to heal the inexorable division into two that need to unite to create new life. Eros, for all his tricks and disreputable goings on, is at least the God of Love.”
Samuel Eisenstein, Jason Aronson Inc. Press.,
p. 29 “Alexander outlined the experiences involving the patient in brief psychotherapy – the intellectual awareness of how his behaviour is inappropriate and belongs to his past, as well as the emotional recognition that feelings are being experienced in therapy. Here Alexander introduced a well-known principle of technique, one he felt applied to any form of psychotherapy: namely the corrective emotional experience. Without that, he felt, there is no psychotherapy to speak of. Very briefly stated, he felt that the difference between the old childhood relationship with the parents and the present relationship between patient and therapist is the central therapeutic element in therapy. The therapist’s reaction to the patient’s feelings in therapy is completely different from the reaction of the parents during the patient’s childhood. He felt that the difference between these attitudes was the cornerstone of the changes that take place in psychotherapy or, for that matter, in psychoanalysis. This difference allows the patient to understand the source of his conflicts. What is more important, the patient becomes aware of the inappropriateness of his emotional experiences. The ego of the patient is afforded a second chance, so to speak; it is helped to adapt to changed situations and to adjust to new and entirely different reality conditions.”
Verso 2016 p. 385 “Openness to the other is what the doctrine of the relation of self to others teaches. The religion of the future takes this view over from the struggle with the world and pursues it free of the equivocations that surround it in that tradition. Its supreme form is personal love among equals rather than benevolence offered from on high or from a distance. Its more diffuse expressions, outside the circle of our closest attachments, are communities cemented by difference rather than by sameness and the higher forms of cooperation, organized institutionally in the practices of production, politics and civil society. Its work is the same as its presupposition: attenuation of the conflict between our need for other people and our need to escape the jeopardy in which they place us.
Openness to the new is the virtue that describes the moral consequence of the doctrine of the relation of spirit to structure. The religion of the future inherits this doctrine from the struggle with the world, and radicalizes it. This virtue acts out the human truth of our relation to the settled contexts of our life and thought. That they are ephemeral and defective, that they cannot accommodate all the experience and insight that we have reason to value, that there is always more in us, individually as well as collectively, than is, or can ever be, in them are facts giving us persistent reason to rebel against structures.
In rebelling against them, we must seek to change their character as well as their content: their relation to our structure-defying freedom. If we surrender to them and allow them to have the last word, rather than keeping the last word for ourselves, we interrupt our attempt to increase our share in the attributes of divinity. We cease to be fully human.”
p. 4 “This book discusses four questions: How do you say Hello? How do you say Hello back? What do you say after you say Hello? and, principally, the plaintive query, What is everybody doing instead of saying Hello? These questions will be answered briefly here. The explanation of the answers will occupy the rest of this psychiatric textbook, which is addressed first to the therapist, secondly to his patients as they get cured, and thirdly to anyone else who cares to listen.
- In order to say Hello, you first get rid of all the trash, which has accumulated in your head ever since you came home from the maternity ward, and then you recognize that this particular Hello will never happen again. It may take years to learn how to do this.
- In order to say Hello back, you get rid of all the trash in your head and see that there is somebody standing there or walking by, waiting for you to say Hello back. It may take years to learn how to do that.
- After you say Hello, you get rid of all the trash that is coming back in your head; all the after-burns of all the grievances you have experienced and all the reach-backs of all the troubles you are planning to get into. Then you will be speechless and will not have anything to say. After more years of practice, you might think of something worth saying.
- Mostly, this book is about the trash: the things people are doing to each other, instead of saying Hello.
It is written in the hope that those with training and talent for such things can help themselves and others to recognize what I am calling (in a philosophical sense) “trash” since the first problem in answering the other three questions is to see what is trash and what isn’t. The way people speak who are learning to say Hello is called ‘Martian’ to distinguish it from everyday Earth-talk, which, as history shows from the earliest recorded times in Egypt and Babylonia to the present, has led to wars, famines, pestilence, and death; and, in the survivors, to a certain amount of mental confusion.
It is hoped that in the long run, Martian, properly learned and properly taught will help to eliminate these plagues. Martian for example, is the language of dreams, which show things the way they really are.”
Photo credit: left-hand via Foter.com / CC BY-ND
Neuropsychoanalysis, 2013, 15(1)
p. 12 “The classical conception is turned on its head. Consciousness is not generated in the cortex; it is generated in the brainstem. Moreover, consciousness is not inherently perceptual; it is inherently affective. And in its primary manifestations, it has less to do with cognition than with instinct. In terms of the parallels drawn in Section 2, the conclusion is inescapable: consciousness is generated in the id, and the ego is fundamentally unconscious.”
p. 14 “The principal value of words, therefore, is not that they enable us to render conscious the inchoate processes of the id (which Freud thought was unconscious); what is important about words is the capacity to represent the relations between things, and re-represent them abstractly. This enables us to think about things, as opposed to simply think things (to think in images). This underpins the all-important “third-person” perspective, to which we shall return shortly.”
Photo credit: Alexey Kljatov (ChaoticMind75) via Foter.com / CC BY-NC
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007.
p. 18 “The individual, his character and his fate are for real. Each individual is different from every other individual who has ever lived or who will ever live. A human life is a dramatic and irreversible movement from birth to death, surrounded by mystery and overshadowed by chance.
What individuals can do with their lives depends on the way society is organized and on their place within the social order, as well as on achievement and luck. What happens in biographical time turns in large part on what happens in historical time. For this reason alone, history is a scene of decisive action, and everything that takes place in it is, like individuality itself, for real, not an illusory or distracting epiphenomenon obscuring a timeless reality. History is not cyclical but rather resembles individual life in being unilinear and irreversible. The institutions and the beliefs we develop in historical time may expand or diminish the life chances of the individual, including his relative power to challenge and change them in the course of his activities.”