Книжный клуб собрался (аж 10 человек), встретились сегодня первый раз. В ходе обуждения вспомнили и лекции Степина по философии науки, и Василюка по психотерапии и статью с лучшим в мире названием “Why Behaviorism Isn't Satanism” (Louise Barrett). Отлично, по-моему, получается, всем спасибо.

Заявки закрыл, но если что — пишите в личку @tschugun.

Что у нас получается: как и ожидалось телефоны во снах встречаются достаточно редко, а тем более привычно работающие. (я вот телефона ни разу даже не видел, как, видимо, и большинство тут)

Есть вот база данных на 16000 (вроде) сновидений — https://sleepanddreamdatabase.org/. И вот на скорую руку анализ упоминаний техники, с разбивкой по полу (различий практически нет: у мужчин чуть чаще встречались велосипеды, у женщин — телефоны, машины и лифты). С выводом, что, похоже, чем старше технология, тем чаще она встречается и во снах. Но одно дело просто в каком-то виде встречается, а другое чтобы новые технологии, компьютеры, смартфоны, еще какие-нибудь девайсы не только отзываются привычным образом, но показывают привычный интерфейс в подробностях, есть ведь люди, которые утверждают что у них все так и есть.

Еще мне почему-то кажется, что собственное отражение во сне это какая-то редкость, нет?

Stephen A. Mitchell, Margaret J. Black. Freud and Beyond
—

«The story is sometimes told that in the last years of his life one of the most important innovators in post-Freudian psychoanalysis had taken to bringing a gun with him when he presented his work at more traditional institutes. He would place it on the lectern without comment and proceed to read his paper. Invariably someone would ask about the gun, and he would say, in a pleasant voice, that the gun was for use on the first person who, rather than addressing the ideas he was presenting, asked instead whether they were ‘really psychoanalysis’.»

Donald L. Carveth. Psychoanalytic Thinking: A Dialectical Critique of Contemporary Theory and Practice
—

«If through analytic deconstruction and disidentification we succeed in becoming relatively disillusioned and, eventually, disillusioned even with our disillusionment, we may reach a state in which we no longer believe (in the idolatrous sense) in anything—and certainly not in nothing. It seems that far from needing to possess a firm (specular) ego in order to function in this world, we function far better as subjects liberated from such “possession.” If we interpret Freud’s and Hartmann’s structural ego as the hypothetical apparatus mediating, like the brain itself, the functioning of the subject, then we may say that this (structural) ego functions far better when freed from interference by the “self” (specular ego, self-image or self-representation). For such acts as shooting the arrow, arranging the flowers, falling asleep, getting an erection, having an orgasm, riding a bicycle, freely associating, listening with freely hovering attention (Freud) or without memory or desire (Bion), etc., are quite distinct from and even incompatible with, the act of watching ourselves do or attempt to do these things (Herrigel, 1953; Epstein, 1995)—however essential such watching may be in first acquiring certain skills, in disrupting unwanted habits and, more generally, in self-monitoring, self- correcting and self-controlling activity.

In an important sense, it is not that our most disturbed patients, those in the psychotic and borderline spectrum, have insufficient ego strength or an insufficiently cohesive self. In a certain sense, they suffer from a (specular) ego or self that is far too strong and cohesive (albeit in the rigidity of its fusions and splits) and that exercises a kind of totalitarian control over their lives. Of course, in another sense, they have insufficient (structural) ego strength to be able to deconstruct and disidentify from the (specular or representational) ego or to enjoy a sufficient sense of the gap between themselves as egos and themselves as subjects to at least be able, on occasion, to laugh at themselves.»

Donald L. Carveth. Psychoanalytic Thinking: A Dialectical Critique of Contemporary Theory and Practice

Лучшее, что прочитал о терапии/анализе за долгое-долгое время. Книга — набор эссе “диалектической критики” идей Фрейда, Биона, Винникотта, Лакана, Фромма, Кохута, Беккера и др. “Диалектическая критика” здесь значит сталкивание лбами спорящих друг с другом традиций внутри психоанализа так, чтобы они в противостоянии дополняли друга друга (как тезис/антитезис преодолеваются через синтез), и в целом поиск оппозиций, обнаружение и удержание напряжения между ними, как попытка противоречие разрешить (“разрешить” здесь двусмысленно: одновремено и “решить как задачу, найти верный ответ” — преодолеть, и “разрешаю, пускай будет” — позволить).

В программе: кляйнианское недовольство «Недовольством культурой» Фрейда; очаровательная терапия и терапия разочарованием; материнская функция против отцовской, критика нежного диктата материнства интерсубъективных/реляционных подходов; безошибочное различение супер-эго и совести; исчезновение фаллоса и оживление мертвых метафор; порицание “Отрицания смерти”, понурого мясного экзистенциализма Беккера; и другие захватывающие номера.

Автор цепкий, широко осведомлен, за словом в карман не лезет, очень нравится. Пять золотых с неба звезд.

#id_books

у автора (Don Carveth) есть канал на ютубе, вот тут упоминал, рекомендую.

А если выбирать что-то одно, то пусть это будет статья о типах вины (о разнице между супер-эго и совестью) — Superego, conscience, and the nature and types of guilt.

«оставим это за скобками)))»

Hans-Georg Gadamer. The Enigma of Health: The Art of Healing in a Scientific Age
—

«The characteristic ability which distinguishes the art of medicine in the context of techne stands, like all techne, within the broader context of nature. All ancient thought conceived the domain of what can skilfully be produced by human art in the light of nature. If techne was understood as the imitation of nature, then this principally signified that the artful capacity of human beings exploits and fills out, as it were, the open realm of possibilities which have been provided for us by the forms of nature itself. In this sense medicine is clearly not an imitation of nature, for there is no artificial product involved. What is supposed to emerge from the exercise of the physician’s art is simply health, that is, nature itself. And this is what leaves its peculiar mark on the art of healing as a whole. It is not an art that involves the invention or planning of something new, of something which does not already exist as it is and which someone could go about producing in an instrumental fashion. On the contrary, it is from the beginning a particular kind of doing and making which produces nothing of its own and has no material of its own to produce something from. The expert practice of this art inserts itself entirely within the process of nature in so far as it seeks to restore this process when it is disturbed, and to do so in such a way that the art can allow itself to disappear once the natural equilibrium of health has returned. Physicians cannot stand back from their work in the way any artists, artisans or fabricators can, in such a way, that is, that they might in some sense retain the product as their own. Of course it is true in all cases of techne that the product is given over into the use of others, yet the product still remains one’s own work. The work of physicians on the other hand, precisely because it is simply the health which has been restored, does not remain theirs in any way, and indeed it never was there. The relationship between the doing and the deed, the making and the made, the effort and the success is here of a fundamentally different, more enigmatic and elusive character.»

Hans-Georg Gadamer. The Enigma of Health: The Art of Healing in a Scientific Age
—

«If we presuppose this idea of nature, then medical intervention must be understood as an attempt to restore an equilibrium that has been disturbed. It is in this that the genuine ‘work’ of medical art consists. Let us ask ourselves therefore how the process of re-producing such equilibrium is distinguished from every other kind of producing. There is no doubt that this represents a quite singular experience with which we are all familiar. We encounter the recovery of equilibrium in exactly the same way as we encounter the loss of it, as a kind of sudden ‘reversal’. Properly speaking there is no continuous and perceptible transition from one to the other, but rather a sudden change of state. This is quite different from anything we are otherwise familiar with in the process of production, where one brick is carefully laid down after another and the change we are planning to effect is pursued step by step. What we encounter here, by contrast, is the experience of balance, ‘where the pure too little incomprehensibly transforms itself, springs over into the empty too much.’ That is how Rilke expresses the phenomenon of balance as experienced by the acrobatic artist. What he is describing is just this: the concentrated effort involved in producing and maintaining equilibrium suddenly proves itself, at the very moment when balance is attained, to be the opposite of what it seemed to be. For if the balancing act were to go wrong, it would not be because physical force or power was lacking or too little was exerted, but rather because there was actually too much force in play. But when the act works, suddenly everything seems to happen spontaneously, lightly and effortlessly. This experience can be seen to accompany every case where equilibrium is successfully produced. Those who strive to produce equilibrium find themselves thrown back, as it were, by something that is somehow self-sufficient and complete. Genuine success is accomplished in medical practice at just that point where intervention is ultimately rendered superfluous and dispensable. All medical efforts at healing are already conceived from the outset in light of the fact that the doctor’s contribution consummates itself by disappearing as soon as the equilibrium of health is restored. In our experience of balance the exertion involved is paradoxically directed at somehow loosening its own grip, precisely in order to allow equilibrium itself to come into play; but all our medical exertions possess a similar inner relationship to the process in which nature itself comes into play.»

Richard Sylvester. I Hope You Die Soon
—

Being a person

«The sense of a being a person is so strong. It has been with me all my life and it is the strongest addiction of all. It arises in so many ways.

I have responsibilities. I am a father to two children. I have students. I am chairman of this very important committee. Perhaps I can save the planet in my spare time.

I have fears. Perhaps I have cancer. My house might have dry rot. I might end my days lonely in a single room with dribble down my chin. Maybe on my way to my holiday destination the aeroplane will come screaming out of the sky in flames.

I have hopes. Perhaps I will meet someone in the coffee bar today and fall in love. Maybe I will be promoted at work. I might win the lottery and be able to give up work and buy a Ferrari at last.

I have longings. Many of these are contradictory. I yearn for inclusion and for solitude, for independence and to be looked after, to feel deeply and to be impregnable and unmoved.

I live in a state of contraction, tensed against threat and pain. There is an overwhelming sense that I am in here and everything else is out there bearing down on me. I have to protect myself against all the pressures that could destroy me. I even have to protect myself against my own dear ones, perhaps especially against those who have seen me at my most open. I may be pulled in every direction by contradictory impulses. Because of my yearning for unity I want to be close to another, to be intimate, to be held, to be comforted. Because of my fear of being invaded, I want to be separate, to be distant, to be autonomous. No state can ever bring me satisfaction for long because every state that I desire contradicts a different state that I also want. When I am included I crave separation. When I am excluded I crave belonging.

I am vulnerable, separate, fearful, easily put out, easily put down. I travel between ecstasy and despair, or I remain imprisoned in armoured non-feeling. Above all I have memories of the past and fears and fantasies about the future. I have regrets, guilt, wishes, if onlys, self-consciousness, embarrassment. I am charismatic or shy. I play my games, exercise my ego, know that I am right, justify myself, evangelise for my beliefs. The sense of 'I' is constantly being created and recreated by every phenomenon, every thought, sensation and feeling.

It is unimaginable that life can go on without the sense of me, that this can simply be seen with no one seeing it. It is impossible to imagine the seeing that there is no one, for who would be seeing it?

Since the first moment of separation the person has been ever-present. Then suddenly in a split second the sense of 'I' drops away completely. There is no gradual transcendental diffusion of the person but its complete disappearance. And the unimaginable has happened, the total absence of self has been seen. The void has been recognised. All concepts of space and time become meaningless. There is only omnipresence. Here and there are seen to be the same.

After this it is very difficult to take your previous life seriously.»

Прям лучшее про “медицинскую модель” и борьбу с ней. (Аваис Афтаб вообще молодец, читайте его сабстак “Psychiatry at the Margins”)

https://www.psychiatrymargins.com/p/people-are-stumbling-from-one-misguided

«First, by giving up existing medical frameworks that seek to address the complex, multifactorial nature of medical conditions and that explicitly recognize the importance of the human experience, critics are forced to clumsily reinvent them without recognizing that this is what they are doing.

Second, by understanding “medical” in this reductive way, they set up medical vs. psychological and medical vs. social dichotomies that are scientifically and philosophically untenable. Trying to purge the “medical” from their explanations leads these critics to make all kinds of ridiculous generalizations about the nature of mental health problems.

[…]

It is ironic that many people who accuse medicine of presenting an overly reductive and simplistic understanding of mental health problems themselves cannot see beyond an overly reductive and simplistic understanding of the medical model.»