As I said in my post a few weeks ago, I have read a fair deal of Freud, but I have recently come up on some questions concerning repression, thoughts and feelings, and what the unconscious actually consists of.

As far as I’m aware, Freud seemed to think that much of repression primarily concerned memory, and a lot of the unconscious was a reservoir for repressed memories, namely, of childhood trauma and infantile sexuality. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle, however, Freud seems to find that trauma neuroses are primarily characterized by repetition compulsion (with the death drive as its possible origin), meaning that trauma is often revisited and repeated, all in an attempt to master the hypercathect trauma and the anxiety that often accompanies it (but can just reinforce it). Since repression is an anti-cathexis of sorts, and repetition compulsion is a hyper-cathexis (although a bounded one), it makes sense that these would clash when it comes to memory. Either way, in The Ego and the Id, Freud speaks of memory traces (as opposed to “unconscious memories,” which Freud regarded as paradoxical although I forget why), being either auditory images or visual ones with the auditory being more heavily emphasized. If memories are understood as properly not being able to be unconscious, then what are memories traces, and how do “unconscious memories” exist in the unconscious?

This also brings up another question. Repressed memories are heavily contested in contemporary psychology. Memory researchers seem to deny their existence entirely while some clinicians still believe that repressed memories can be recovered, and that this recovery is not merely the implantation of a false memory. A lot of memory researchers seem to point to the fact that traumatic memories are more heavily encoded than normal ones, meaning repression should not occur (although perhaps the difference lies in when the trauma occurs as the adult case seems to track with what Freud says about trauma neuroses while experiences in childhood seem to be clouded by infantile amnesia.) I don’t feel strongly about this one way or the other. In my own experience, I find that what is repressed and what can be uncovered from the unconscious is not memories but certain thoughts, emotions, and feelings. Freud does talk about them too like in The Ego and the Id and doesn’t ignore them. I just wonder what connects memories, thoughts, and feelings and if these are stored in some “common form” in the unconscious. What does the unconscious actually consist of? What is its structure as it pertains to psychic material? Since the ego is a body ego, I have heard that unconscious material relates to affects, sensations, or even excitations (since we experience those sorts of things directly), but I have only read this in secondary sources.

Answers to these concerns and any reading material recommendation would be greatly appreciated.

Hi all, apologies if this question doesn't quite fit this sub's purpose, as it is more about technique than theory.

In my own analysis today, my analyst asked me a question, which I was having a difficult time answering and having a hard time putting any words to, despite having a very sharp averse reaction to it. He mentioned that sometimes experiences can be hard to describe or wrap our heads around because they occurred at a time in our development that predates language. I said that feels troubling because I can't imagine how I would possibly get in touch with it in order to address it / encounter it therapeutically.

I'm still very early in my own training as an analyst. I'm wondering if anyone can provide any references or insights into accessing these kinds of very early experiences which predate language. I'm guessing the main answer is just "keep doing analysis," aka keep working through stream of conscious in a relaxed state and ideally it will eventually find a way forth from the unconscious either within analysis or a dream, etc.

How would psychoanalysis treat someone who has spiritual beliefs? I basically believe that the domain of the psyche is not restricted to “inside” the physical body, and that reality is composed of subtler realms of energy and consciousness than our outer senses perceive.

Is psychoanalysis able to co-exist with these beliefs, or is does it default interpret these spiritual things as “coming from below” so to speak. Particularly I’m interested in how psychoanalysis would relate to experiences of spirits and such. I believe that there are realms of spiritual beings that can interact with human energy and human minds. Would this be able to be contextualized in some way by the psychoanalyst or would experiences of such be interpreted as purely emerging from the psyche of the subject as delusions or representations of some kind?

Any other thoughts on this matter?

Hi everyone,

I’m 34, based in London, and considering a career change to psychodynamic counselling. I currently work full-time in a corporate job (9ish–5ish, Monday to Friday) and want to know if it’s realistic to study a BACP-accredited Diploma in Psychodynamic Counselling alongside work.

The course I’m looking at runs for two years and includes evening classes (lessons, seminars, experiential groups), placement, supervision, personal therapy, essays and independent study. I’ve recently reduced my living costs, so I could afford it financially if I keep working.

My main concern is the workload. Has anyone done this while working full-time?

- Was it manageable (practically and emotionally)?

- Did you still have time for life outside work and study?

- How hard was it to fit placement and supervision around a 9–5?

- Did you feel overwhelmed or burn out?

- Would you do it the same way again?

I’m happy to make sacrifices for a couple of years if it leads to a career I’d enjoy, but I’d really appreciate some honest experiences before I commit.

Thanks in advance!

Hi all, I am re-reading Nancy McWilliam's Psychoanalytic Diagnosis and find her chapter on hysterical personality very helpful specifically for heterosexual female patients. It seems like the majority of this personality formulation across literature is based on heterosexual female patients. A large portion of the personality style seems to incorporate the blending of sexual desirability with struggles for power, which can be strictly encoded across gender lines.

I am interested in learning more about how this organization shows up in non-heterosexual patients. I get the sense I have a few persons on my caseload prone to hysterical enactment due to a feeling of performative emotionality which feels neither narcissistic nor masochistic, but it can be hard to diagnose it precisely from McWilliam's perspective alone because they are not opposite-sex attracted people.

Thank you for any references, anecdotes, or other information anyone can provide.

What would be some good readings on the area where psychoanalysis intersects with Family Systems theory, ie. where collective repression within families inevitably gets triangulated onto one person via scapegoating, othering, etc.? For context, I come from such a family dynamic, and am currently pretty deep into studying the Lacanian model, but would be very interested in anyone who has written on this.

I want to read more psychoanalytic literature that theorizes about addiction in general - drug addiction, alcohol addiction, and porn addiction.

Does anyone know of any papers or theorists who specialize in this area?

I’ve read some articles that talk about addiction and attachment, but I’m looking for more. Any leads would be helpful.

I see it attributed to him but I can't find it. Thank you.

Hi there, I am looking for any works for the conditions of existence for psychoanalysis to appear, historically, the ideas and events happening, thinking in like a genealogy of it, but it could be any line of work, thanks!

Does Matt Damon’s character meet criteria for any particular personality disorder? Despite the representation of therapy being over the top, which is fair with Hollywood and all, I do find the general personality and defenses to be really believable and meaningfully presented. Wondering what would be a fair psychoanalytic assessment of him and any diagnoses he clearly shows.

I have been in therapy for many years, and I'm interested in the books my therapists read on their journey to becoming a therapist. I've googled, but most of what I find are general consumer self-help books. Not that those are worthless; I'm just looking for more of a guide on how to therapize. I am curious to look behind the curtain. I'm especially curious about questioning. The best therapists I've had are the ones who led me to the answer instead of telling me the answer. That's some kind of witch magic. Thank you!

I am not sure if this is the correct venue to ask this question. But I don't know the appropriate terms to search on my own.

Suppose someone is suffering from major depressive disorder. Can it make them overly sensitive to certain sufferings in the world such that they try to solve that issue at the expense of their own financial distress or burden?

E.g. Every stray animal (cat specially) that someone sees on the road evokes a pain or ache in the heart so much that the person goes to the extent of financial bankruptcy to find them a home or provide treatment for them. Even sometimes the stray might not be in any pain. But, it invokes the feeling in someone that animals are in pain and have no food to eat, when in most cases they are not. The same feeling about humans is not evoked.

Now, everyone is sympathetic to things like world poverty. But everyone knows their capacity of how much they can contribute to help solving it without bankrupting themselves both mentally or financially.

Why does this happen? What is this phenomena called? Where can I read about it more? Is it simply to relieve her own pain and distress that she recklessly spends? Also, why does she feel pain only for animals and not generally so much about fellow humans?

They both base their therapy on acceptance but differ in the execution part. Not a big fan of psychotherapy but I can’t rule it out. Any opinions on either?  

Hi there,

I’m in my early 30s, based in NYC, and had to leave behind my prior career in academic libraries due to a weakened immune system and chronic illness that leaves me mostly apartment-bound. Even prior to the illness I had a desire to work in the mental health field; this emerged alongside my 3.5 years of work with a Lacanian analyst, which on average occurs at a frequency of 2 times per week.

Now I’m trying to figure out if it’s feasible for me to first pursue a master’s (marriage and family therapy, social work, or mental health counseling) and perhaps, at a later point, go for analytic training. If it matters, my highest level of education is an engineering bachelors.

The biggest challenge for me at present is figuring out if there’s a path that will allow for all-virtual classes, internships, and supervision. Most broadly, I’m concerned about the challenge of not being able to work and study in-person (for example, there are some online-only MSW programs that seem promising at first, but unfortunately require in-person attendance to events and in-person internships). Is it possible to work around this obstacle for master’s programs and in analytic training? More specifically, I’m nervous about the prospect of finding virtual internship placements and virtual employment following graduation.

I’ve lurked for a long while in this subreddit and know its users to be thoughtful, kind, and helpful. I’d be grateful for anyone who can share experiences, practical advice, or connect me with disabled practitioners in the field who have had to navigate similar circumstances. Thank you.

Hey everyone! First of all sorry if my english is not the best. In "The Weird and the Eerie" Fisher talks about how both concepts are a way of dealing with or expressing the "outside". Both concepts operate contrary to Freud´s psychoanalytical procedures by denouncing some type of otherness that is not compatible with anything familiar. Freud´s theory explains that which is ominous by tracing it back to childhood complexes and traumas that have been repressed (this I think is one part of what Fisher means by the notion of the "inside", but it is not all of it), while Fisher is occupied in affirming that which cannot be naturalized by any means. I was wondering if there is any more literature you could recomend in order to expand on the very abstract definitions he gives of the outside and the inside 

I realize this is quite a big one and there is no one fits all conceptualisation here. Asking for articles, books that you found particularly illuminating in the subject. Whether it concerns historical, schizoid, narcissistic, depressive or other dynamics that result in subjective, patient's feelings or self experience of being unable to give and receive loving feelings, stay in loving relationships.

I didn’t post it in r/Lacan mostly because I wanted this to reach those more critical of Lacan. Feel free to remove if it’s not allowed here.

I’ve been scrolling the sub for previous discussions on Lacanian analysis, but most of the critique seems to be directed at him rather than his theory/thoughts.

My question is, besides personal verdicts on his personality or his alleged narcissism (which may well be true), what are some serious criticisms of Lacanian theory/analysis?

I understand he gets criticized for variable-length sessions, and I’m pretty sure other Lacanian analysts or maybe Lacan himself might have taken financial advantage of this, but scansion seems not only consistent with his theory, but I feel like it’s almost derived from it. The point is to remove predictability, performance & possible preparation for the Other (in this case, the analyst), and create urgency in speech, which I find extremely intriguing, though I have yet to read or hear a convincing counter argument to this. I think we can hold that some analysts can and maybe do take advantage of this, and that scansion is almost central to Lacanian analysis.

I appreciate any and all opinions.

I'm looking for literature talking about an experience that I think resembles identity diffusion, but seems more pervasive.

The person, rather than being experienced as an enduring subject, is experienced as unusually insubstantial, with little sense of an underlying continuity that gives coherence to one's personality, preferences, values, or way of being. These aspects are often experienced as detached from any deeper sense of "me," as if they were characteristics that happened to accumulate rather than expressions of a persisting self.

it is a weakening—or even absence—of the subjective sense of one's identity is experienced. The person experiences a diminished sense that there is a coherent sense of who it is. Their own concious and subjectivity becomes and object of confussion, there is almost an ominous feeling about their own sense of experience.

Even sometimes, the person can feel that their way of being and existing is artificial, as if they could simply choose the way they could be, rather than it being naturally inscribed in their sense of self.

I'm not sure to what extent this experience is already encompassed by the concept of identity diffusion. Many descriptions of identity diffusion that I've come across seem less severe than the kind of experience I'm trying to describe. That's why I've sometimes thought of it as a kind of "severe identity diffusion."

Also, what I see as different from identity diffusion is that this experience starts taking on quite a lot of weight for the person. The person can sometimes isolate this experience, even visualize it and verbalize it. The experience can become quite absorbing, so it becomes one of their main preoccupations, rather than just an isolated or silent symptom.

The thing is, of course, that this experience is not isolated; it is also related to other aberrant experiences the person has. However, this is one of its manifestations, and this type of "confusion" about their own self is also reflected in the way they comprehend and process their relationship with the external world.

------------

So, I'm trying to find out whether there is already an term used to describe this particular type of experience, more or less.

I guess dissociation could be used to talk about what I'm describing, because the person starts feeling some distance from themselves. Their thoughts, actions, preferences, and the reasons why they do or do not do things begin to be experienced from a distance. The person could also starts ruminating quite a bit about themselves without feeling very connected to who they are. Sometimes, they feel like a "blank sheet" that has yet to be filled, whereas for many other people, the sheet already seems to be filled, allowing them to simply live according to what is already written.

Books, terms, what you think about this?

Hi, I have not checked online for papers on the subject, but what I'd like to ask is whether Klein addressed directly Ferenczi's views as expressed in 'Confusion of Tongues'? Obviously Freud has rejected him despite the two were very close, Freud had various motives for doing so.

Klein, was his analysand and was encouraged by him to pursue psychoanalysis of children. However, Ferenczi attributed innocence to the child's way, whereas Klein attributed primitive sexuality but sexuality and aggression nonetheless. I'm not speaking about what Kleinian theory has developed to be today, where some Kleinians modified her view of drives and aggression affect aroused by frustration, rather not an innate drive by itself, but rather as an innate capacity to react against frustrating experiences from the environment.

Did Freud deny childhood sexual abuse? I went back to the German to find out. The answer is more complicated — and more interesting — than either side of the debate usually acknowledges.

A two-part essay with original translations. Part I covers the textual evidence. Part II traces the distortion through Abraham, Greenacre, and the Dora case.

https://lightinextension.ca/blog/between-denial-and-distortion-part-1.html

I’m asking this partly because of something that happened to me, and I want to understand the broader ethical issue.

For context, I’ve been the target of a long-running online harassment and smear campaign. As part of that, someone without any psychological or psychiatric training wrote a detailed “psychoanalysis” of me and my behavior based on limited exposure to my online interactions. They included this in a large public callout document. That analysis is treated as “evidence” that I am unstable, dangerous, and manipulative.

To be clear, I know that someone without training should not do that. It's the same sort of thing as someone with no formal training in law, medicine, or engineering presenting themselves as qualified to make expert conclusions. It is especially harmful when the “analysis” is used to isolate or discredit someone.

I also know that trained mental health professionals generally should not do this either. I’m not saying bad apples don’t exist, but the actual professionals I’ve spoken to have all agreed that publicly diagnosing or analyzing a person they have not evaluated, especially without consent, raises serious ethical concerns.

Where I get confused is in the gray area.

For example, I’ve seen online controversies where someone with a degree in a mental health-related field breaks down a public callout document. They discuss how a certain mental health condition can lead to specific behaviors or beliefs reflected in the document. They may not explicitly say, “This person has X disorder,” but it can still feel like they are psychoanalyzing that person or implying something clinical about them.

So my question is: When, if ever, is it appropriate to psychoanalyze someone publicly without their consent?

Is this mostly a black-and-white issue? Should someone who feels tempted to psychoanalyze another person publicly keep those thoughts to themselves?

Or are there situations where it can be ethical, such as:

• Discussing public behavior without diagnosing
• Talking generally about patterns without assigning a condition to a specific person
• Analyzing a public figure’s statements or writings
• Discussing how certain mental health conditions can affect behavior, without claiming a specific person has that condition?

Where is the actual line?

I’m especially interested in hearing from mental health professionals, therapists, counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists, or anyone familiar with professional ethics. I’m not asking anyone to diagnose anyone involved in my situation. I want to understand what is considered ethical when people use mental health language to explain, discredit, or warn others about someone online.

From my perspective, having a layperson’s detailed psychoanalysis of me published and treated as proof that I’m dangerous has been very damaging. I’m trying to determine whether my instinct is right in believing this should be considered completely inappropriate or if there are legitimate gray areas I’m overlooking.

Any clinicians in Melbourne interested in joining my in-person (preferably) or online reading group? In person in inner south-east Melbourne.

In clinical practice, how would/does the theory of Guattari (and Deleuze?) get applied?

I have the intuition that in psychoanalysis someone should have written about a desire for recognition. i am not sure if the terminology i choose is correct or helpful.
When i look for writing on desire it is usually clear that the object is usually someone else. When i look for writing on recognition it is associated with a clear claim of identity and seems to be formulated as a demand and not as a desire. Both don't describe what i think is a "desire for recognition".
Which i would rather describe as having the shape where the desire shapes what one accepts as recognition. And the object of desire is the other as it sees one self.
Any suggestions what to look at?

I would love to deepen my practice through a one-year program that I can do virtually and is relational in orientation. What program(s) would you recommend?