Thank you so much for these excellent lectures.

A wonderful unpacking of Klein’s major concepts. Great job !

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

My understanding of projective identification is that it begins in infancy when the infant can't meet their own needs.... food, cleaning or nurturing, and thus induce their tension into the caregiver who then (hopefully) meets that need. People who frequently use projective identification are likely somewhat stuck in their first year of life, feeling as if they can't solve their own struggle and thus must induce it into whoever is near. We tolerate it/ respond to it with infants, but tend to find it unpleasant/ unacceptable in adults!!! This understanding paves the way for a closer listening for early unresolved trauma and thus a more productive outcome.

@muhamadfaisal623

5 ай бұрын

Well said

This is wonderful! Such a great complement to my books and professors. Thank you for explaining this so clearly and in such a down-to-earth manner!

Projective identification-the capacity to elicit feelings in another person. As long as you have ego functions down.

Professor, one word ...Thank you !

@doncarveth

2 жыл бұрын

Most welcome

I am a recently qualified child psychotherapist and I have dyslexia. Your videos are wonderful and your explanations are extremely clear. You help me to revisit and refresh the ideas/theories I learned during my training. Thanks you so much🙏

@doncarveth

2 жыл бұрын

You are most welcome

Thanks

Hi Don. I’m going to teach Klein to psychiatry residents this week. This video helped me a lot to get better prepared. I actually was introduced to Klein more than 20 years ago by you. Thank you! Timur

@doncarveth

2 жыл бұрын

Tmur, Happy New Year! Very glad you will be teaching Klein to psychiatrists. They really need it. For me it continues to be essential in Psychodiagnosis and formulation. Great to hear from you. All the best.

Thanks for this.

Your explanation of PI and how it differs .from projection helped me

@doncarveth

6 ай бұрын

Good, I’m glad

Imagine how much nicer the world would be if there was no projection

I'm teaching Lacan as one of the approaches of critical reading in the undergraduate course I handle ,Literary Theory and Criticism. Although you explained Klein's Psychoanalysis, I appreciate your lecture to provide context on Freud. Mentioning Eric Fromm in your previous lecture also made me curious about his contribution to the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. I actually devote more time explaining the integration of Marx and Freud by focusing on Herbert Marcuse's " Eros and Civilization" and totally Fromm's theory. So next time, I believe, I need to give justice to Fromm's account of Freudian Marxism. Many thanks, Sir.

@doncarveth

Ай бұрын

Very good, I am happy to hear you will integrate Fromm

Strachey holds that the patient projects the harsh superego onto the analyst, expecting the analyst to react accordingly but discovers the analyst does not do so. The contrast between expectation and actuality leads to the gradual modification of the superego. While this is a move in a similar direction it is not the same thing as elimination of the superego and its replacement by the ego. I prefer Eli nation of the superego and iTs replacement by conscience, not the ego. To affirm the idea of superego modification and deny the need for a separate concept of conscience is futile for we only know in what ways the superego needs to be modified is through conscience.

I keep looking at the plant, twisted up with itself

Hello Professor Carveth, towards the end of the lecture you discuss your five featured ideal of the psyche adding conscience and ego-ideal . I was wondering if you have a video/ paper that describes your theory in further detail. Thank you for providing such excellent content, it is a joy to learn from you.

@doncarveth

6 жыл бұрын

Ryan, yes, I’ll be putting that up in the next day or so. Thanks.

Can you expand on what you see as the difference between "superego modification" and the usurping of the superego by the ego? (ie the view of Strachey vs the views of Ferenzci, Alexander, and Freud). It seems to me that if "superego modification" more or less amounts to the bringing the superego under conscious control, they would more or less amount to the same thing in different language. (Here I am only guessing what "superego modification" really entails, I am not familiar with Strachey and the video doesn't go into much detail on the matter)

I think the video jumped around 52:00 when you were explaining the third type of patient and lie barrier systems. I’m not sure I understood it.

Is there a reference to the types of clients that attend therapy/3 types of psychoanalytic work (i.e. the type ABC clients)?

@doncarveth

7 жыл бұрын

See Robert Langs (1978), "Some Communicative Properties of the Bipersonal Field," International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 7: 89-161. Reprinted in his collection "Technique in Transition"; also in Grotstein (Ed.), "Do I Dare Disturb the Universe?" I can't recall which later paper by Kernberg makes the same points but without referencing Langs.

@SignedL

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! Great video too!

Hey Don, amazing lectures. I'm having trouble properly distinquishing between projection and projective identification in the Kleinian sense. Most google searches refer to the main difference between both terms using the Bionian explanation that one (Projection) is an internal mechanism and the latter affects reality and is a method of communication. Is it safe to say that in projection, the person gets rid of his problematic feelings and doesn't seem to be bothered by it afterwards, whereas in projective identification the person projects bad parts of the self on another, but has trouble to differentiate between self and other and therefore feels persecuted by the projection? And do you think that projection is merely pertinent to negative feelings? Thank you, Yotam

@doncarveth

3 жыл бұрын

Yotan, I am afraid it is more complicated than that. By projective identification clean her self meant something like Freud’s projection. She use the term in a slightly brighter sense, not just projection of it impulses but projection of, say, the super ego, but she operated with a one person psychology. In other words she was not concerned with the effect on B of A’s projections. Projective identification for Klein was a fantasy spelt with a PH. It is my fantasy that I have put something into you, quite a part from any effect this has on you. It was Wilfred bion who extended this to a two person psychology. Wilfred bion who extended this to a two person psychology.Mrs. Klein had real doubts about the validity of this. Like the Freudians she feared this interpersonal use of the concepts could lead to blaming the victim.When is supervisee said his patient was putting her confusion into him, Mrs. Klein replied “no, dear, you are confused.”I do not mean to suggest that beyond’s type of interpersonal projective identification does not exist. It does exist. But has to be distinguished from Clines usage of the term.

Hello... My name is Luiza and I am from Brazil...Ypur lectures are wonderful...it is helping me so much...The vídeo 5 and 6 from Klein´s introduction Theory has a problem with the sound..

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

At 51:23 you mentioned a paper published about projective identification as a mean of crazy making but i couldn‘t find the author. Could you write down how the name is spelled or maybe a link to the paper itself if it‘s available online. Thank you.

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

Harold Searles, Most likely in his collected papers on either schizophrenia or on counter transference.

@mosesthecroesus1725

4 жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth Thanks again

Your lectures are helping me a lot to make a sense of things. I am a young therapyst. What book do you suggest reading for understanding and working with projective identification?

@doncarveth

9 ай бұрын

I recommend listening to my six Klein lectures, and my four Bion lectures on KZread.

@mirejpaunovic722

9 ай бұрын

Thanks! I really apreciate your response! I listened your videos on Melanie Klein, I'll be watching Bion soon!

This theme of internalization always makes me think. May be my question sounds awfully stupid but do we really need this concept? I always feel that something is problematic with the idea that certain experiences form internal structures or agencies in us that thereafter start to function as autonomous or semi-autonomous entities within our personality and perform functions of punishment, gratification…etc. Couldn’t we able to explain all the phenomena of superego formation, transmutative internalization of selfobjects…etc. by the simple fact that every developing individual makes up a cognitive model about his/her environment and his/her interferences with it? If someone has strong inhibitions and intense conscientiousness-anxiety is it surely because he has built up some agency within himself such as a very strict superego? Isn’t it rather because he learned from the earliest times from the interactions with his environment that the external world usually reacts rigorously to deviations and failures in living up to expectations? If someone can keep his self-esteem in spite of temporary failures or negative feedbacks, is it really because he has internalized some good self object that provides him with enough narcissistic fuel to get over the hard times? Or is it rather simply because he learned that a failure does not mean a total breakdown of one’s competence in all respects and a critical reaction does not mean that we have lost all the acceptance and love of all the persons who are important to us? The point is: do we really need to suppose internal agencies in the psyche to explain all transference and developmental experiences? Or they serve only rhetorical functions? May be we’d better try to explain behavior without them in line with the Occam’s razor principle?

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

ID, ego, super ego, etc., or simply metaphors and useful ones. The trouble with the learning model you present is that it makes the super ego echo social reality, when A certain proportion of it is based on the child’s projection of aggression into the parental object who is then internalized. One could do a lot of the translation you represent but there is danger that important elements would be lost.

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

Much science operates through metaphors.

@pinterfe

4 жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth Thanks!

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

Ferenc Pintér Most welcome

Hello professor Carveth. Early on, the lecture you mentioned “reason cannot tell us what’s right and what’s wrong.” I was wondering what is your idea about Ayn Rand bridging the is-ought gap? Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

Well it’s easy to bridge the is-ought gap in a variety of ways. But the bridge always involves a leap beyond reason, usually a hidden value judgment. David Hume pretty much settled the matter for me in the 18th century: you cannot deduce an art from the news. Science can tell us what it is but not when I want to be. I went through my Ayn Rand phase in my late teens, but university courses in sociology and social psychology demonstrated there is really no such thing as an individual. We become individuals in and through language and society.

By the way it’s great lecture

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Thanks

@mohamedmilad1

Жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth my son is interested in having good analyst to supervise him through his psychiatric training , he’s choosing psychoanalysis as his future goal. I am wondering how do I go about it in age of telecommunications and supervision

How do we move from Metaphorically speaking internalised bad object and bad self to something measurable identifiable,I.e scientific. The other point I am uncertain about how can we postulate PS position in child first year pre-language age from interaction with child play post language age. And isn’t the PS position just Freudian pleasure principle and aggressive drives directed towards an object of care and Oedipal complex with depressive stage…and as we know from other writers that drives needs an object of desire to attach to and this is endless task that we shift with time until we run out of drive and succumb to apathy… Love to know your opinion

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Questions are too complex to answer here. But the last question indicates contamination by Lacanian ideas.

@mohamedmilad1

Жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth and lacan took it from esoteric sophism ideas of fana “ annihilation of the self “ I guess I see similarities between them and saying same thing from different angles

@mohamedmilad1

Жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth I think I read somewhere that Freud did write about the drives need for an objects of desires to attach to which most likely activated Klein object relation theory

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

@@mohamedmilad1 yes

I'm really impressed by your lectures ! Would yo allow me to translate them into French?

@doncarveth

6 жыл бұрын

Email me (dcarveth@yorku.ca) so we can discuss it.

1:00:00

Out-dated philosophy vitiates Caveth's argument. It is perfectly possible to derive an Ought from an Is. The relationship is not mutually exclusive. Some things are 'required' if X is to be counted as what it is, to put it in the most formal terms. So if this is Carveth's justification for his assertion that the Ego concept is incompatible in function with something like conscience, his argument fails. Facts, as Hillary Putnam has put it, are value-dependent. Conscience is co-present with reality-testing and executive functions from the most primitive stages of psychological development.

@doncarveth

3 жыл бұрын

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/

@christofeles63

3 жыл бұрын

​@@doncarveth Someone of your expertise should not be wasting his time with Sam Harris. Whatever his "neurobiological" qualifications, his ignorance of the philosophical literature is as naive as his belief that neurobiology has anything to add to the debate about, for instance, deontological vs. utilitarian ethics, or the fact-value distinction. And it aids and abets the prolongation of superficial dichotomizing, as if these things were self-evident ("Everyone knows you can't get an ought from an is"). And as if it were clear what, exactly, Hume meant by this entirely debatable observation. philosophynow.org/issues/83/Hume_on_Is_and_Ought The whole matter is not crucial to the point you are making about the Super-ego, in any case. Hume was concerned with refuting a claim about logical derivability / deduction, not human motivation, unconscious or otherwise. I do not see the connection to the distinction between the reality-testing Executive function and the agency of internalized prohibitions. Neither has anything to do with logical deduction as a method of behaving, psycho-dynamically described. In other words, the allusion is superfluous. Psychologically 'ought'--in its desiderative form--is older than conscience or morality. "This should be" being the undifferentiated form of the perception that something is missing and needs to be 'returned'. Its origin in the reality of desire/hunger would be an argument for the Super-ego as part of, or coeval with, the Id. Not least of all because both are in some sense "foreign" to the self that negotiates between pleasure- and reality-principles. I haven't studied Freud in years, but doesn't he make this observation himself somewhere? Unlike the Is-Ought distinction, the topographical Instanzen are just models, of course, and one can play around with them any way one wishes, as other psychoanalysts certainly did. As Freud himself did. The only constraint is one's capacity for dialectic. Morality is central to social psychology, which is inescapably a moral science. The whole question of whether the Ego should replace the Super-ego, defined as the internalized authority of powerful people/society at large (Durkheim's defintion of God), can be conceived as the striving to transcend morally heteronomous motivation (fear of punishment, being the most obvious example) and assume the role of self-legislating, morally autonomous, and rational self, to use Kant's terminology.

@rfwoolf

2 жыл бұрын

You make some good points here and below, but your tone is not one of respect and comes across as heavy-handed. Apropos this video, you seem to be guilty of splitting on this matter: Don happened to merely touch upon this topic, in passing, where there was no opportunity (nor expectation) for him to offer the nuance and full content of his argument, and you have pounced on it, amplified it, and gone full-force in countering it. You have deemed Don's impromptu side-comment on the matter as somehow his considered in-depth argument. This is quit similar to a straw-man argument. In order for us as humans to think at all, we need to be afforded to sometimes take shortcuts in our speech and yes, 'split' - in that sense you are both technically guilty - in order for us to get through the day we need to 'split' and take mental shortcuts, devoid of nuance and full consideration. This is not quite the platform for a debate about the is-ought argument. Just to re-iterate this in another way, you say "Out-dated philosophy vitiates Caveth's argument" -- he hardly made an argument at all, he simply expressed a thought.

@christofeles63

2 жыл бұрын

​@@rfwoolf Any platform is the occasion you make of it. I chose to focus on a parenthetical remark because that's what caught my attention. Feel free to focus on the thing that catches your attention. And please de-cathect your parent ego state. You are not the discourse referee.

are these people on their death beds? every video has people just constant coughing and sounding sick as can be...

destructive envy example ? Look into yourself...so easy judging people ( perhaps you are even PROJECTING it ) Trump Trump = OBSESSION