aThousandCateaus (bookwyrm) replied to Alex :autism:'s status
Content warning mentions of sex
@alex@xim.ca nothing can ever be as it is, it all has to be something else
| lgbtq | marxist | linux | furry | sometimes nsfw |
learning haskell & deleuze
DMs are open. I like talking to new people.
This link opens in a pop-up window
57% complete! aThousandCateaus (bookwyrm) has read 37 of 64 books.
Content warning mentions of sex
@alex@xim.ca nothing can ever be as it is, it all has to be something else
Richard, though he did not say so, appeared to accept this interpretation.
Yes, because he's coming to you with a severe problem that he hasn't been able to fix on his own and you, as the analyst, are a potential solution to that problem and your position gives you power and legitimacy.
It doesn't mean that you're right, just that he's a desperate child trying to solve his problems.
Content warning mentions of sex
Mrs K. suggested that the tramp who would hurt Mummy at night seemed to him very much like Hitler who frightened Cook in the air-raid and ill-treated the Austrians. Richard knew that Mrs K. was Austrian, and so she too would be ill-treated. At night he might have been afraid that when his parents went to bed something could happen between them with their genitals that would injure Mummy (Note II).
Richard looked surprised and frightened. He did not seem to understand what the word ‘genital’ meant.2 Up to this point he had obviously understood and had listened with mixed feelings.
Mrs K. asked whether he knew what she meant by ‘genital’.
Richard first said no, then admitted that he thought he knew. Mummy had told him that babies grew inside her, that she had little eggs there and Daddy put some kind of fluid into her which made them grow. (Consciously he seemed to have no conception of sexual intercourse, nor a name for the genitals.)3 He went on to say that Daddy was very nice, very kind, he wouldn’t do anything to Mummy.
Mrs K. interpreted that he might have contradictory thoughts about Daddy. Although Richard knew that Daddy was a kind man, at night, when he was frightened, he might fear that Daddy was doing some harm to Mummy. When he thought of the tramp, he did not remember that Daddy, who was in the bedroom with Mummy, would protect her; and that was, Mrs K. suggested, because he felt that it was Daddy himself who might hurt Mummy.
This is so strange. How do psychoanalysists not just see this as leading/manipulation?
She's analysing a child who has issues with anxiety and in the very first session she can't help but be like "okay, so Richard, this is all about sex and also mommy/daddy."
It's so wild, I'm glad psychoanalysis isn't considered reputable anymore.
Naive realism would probably suppose that analysis consisted merely in dividing a given object into parts, i.e., into other objects, then those again into parts, i.e., into still other objects, and so on. But even naive realism would be faced with the choice between several possible ways of dividing. It soon becomes apparent that the important thing is not the division of an object into parts, but the conduct of the analysis so that it conforms to the mutual dependences between these parts, and permits us to give an adequate account of them. In this way alone the analysis becomes adequate and, from the point of view of a metaphysical theory of knowledge, can be said to reflect the “nature” of the object and its parts.
When we draw the full consequences from this, we reach a conclusion which is most important for an understanding of the principle of analysis: both the object under examination and its parts have existence only by virtue of these dependences; the whole of the object under examination can be defined only by their sum total; and each of its parts can be defined only by the dependences joining it to other coordinated parts, to the whole, and to its parts of the next degree, and by the sum of the dependences that these parts of the next degree contract with each other. After we have recognized this, the “objects” of naive realism are, from our point of view, nothing but intersections of bundles of such dependences. That is to say, objects can be described only with their help and can be defined and grasped scientifically only in this way. The dependences, which naive realism regards as secondary, presupposing the objects, become from this point of view primary, presupposed by their intersections.
The recognition of this fact, that a totality does not consist of things but of relationships, and that not substance but only its internal and external relationships have scientific existence, is not, of course, new in science, but may be new in linguistic science. The postulation of objects as something different from the terms of relationships is a superfluous axiom and consequently a metaphysical hypothesis from which linguistic science will have to be freed.
I think I like Hjelmslev. I agree with this. That being said, semiotics in general systems like it's very interested in relationships and systems rather than atomic units/parts, so it's an area I've found really interesting and agreeable.
“Félix has always operated in multiple dimensions, in so many different psychiatric and political activities; he does a lot of group work. Or perhaps I should compare him to the sea: always apparently in motion, sparkling with light non-stop. He can jump from one activity to another, he doesnt sleep much, he travels, he never stops. He never relents. He has extraordinary speeds.” Deleuze says that he himself is “more like a hill: I don't move much, I can't manage two projects at once, I obsess over my ideas, and the few movements I do have are internal.” So it was a combat, but an original combat that did not set two combatants against one another, but where the opposition was at the very heart of a single combat: “Together, Félix and I would have made a good Sumo wrestler.”?
I love their relationship and the way Deleuze talks about Guattari. Is v cute :3