I think i'm hooked on Don Carveth explaining Klein to me. It's starting to make sense. Thank you kindly.

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

You are most welcome

thanks Don , the presentation was greater than what I have expected

Thank you Professor Caveth. Very interesting. I plan ro work my way through you videos.

Many thanks Prof. I'm a trainee analyst and your presentation is very informative

@doncarveth

3 жыл бұрын

Good, I’m glad

Zach, Freud used the term “ambivalence“ in opposite ways: sometimes meaning splitting but at other times meaning the overcoming of splitting. You can only tell by context. In splitting we avoid feeling both love and hate toward the same object by splitting the object into two separate objects, one loved and the other heated. In ambivalence or whole object relating we see that there is one object that we both love and hate.

thank you for adding this lecture. i wish there was one big database with every psychoanalysis lecture,podcast,documentary,book and article ever written,gave,etc. :)

@dorinakapaj4089

5 жыл бұрын

There is . You just have to pay for it. www.pep-web.org/

Thank you Dr Carveth.

How do you define ambivalence? Like when you say there's a conflict of ambivalence?

Great lecture thanks. What do you think of the idea that something akin to the oceanic feeling operates in authoritarian movements and a 'return' to womb/merging with the mother is a psychological factor there. I know chasseguet-smirgel strongly links that to primary narcissism but even if primary narcissism is a myth it still seems to have a strong affinity with the experience of totalitarian moments.

Hello, I am the founder of the nation's first LGBT specialization at Antioch University, and I work as a Kleinian. I''m just discovering you and I look forward to learning from you. I also do Teachable Videos on here in terms of psychoanalysis and gay liberation.

Brilliant stuff. My question on splitting is answered. Thanks.

@doncarveth

3 жыл бұрын

Very good.

Well that's not primary narcissism, it's what Freud called the purified pleasure ego, the feeling that the self is all good and the not self all bad. But that requires the distinction between self and not self which, by Freud's definition is absent in primary narcissism. Re indifference, hate, love ... I'd have to have the passage where he seems to say that, or where I myself seem to say this.

1:12:00 to which I would add, that it’s not just patriarchal men who can not conceive of a bad woman but, ironically, also certain (most?) feminists. And that fits with Zizek’s version of Lacan, that patriarchy is a system in which women are oppressed by being put on a pedestal, and men are oppressed by their role to compete with each other for those women.

@doncarveth

7 ай бұрын

Yes

Dear Prof Carveth Thanks for sharing your deep understanding of psychoanalytic theory. Do you have a reference for / a way of s sharing the chart you refer to in this talk? Many thanks Vaughan (A keen student of all things philosophical)

@doncarveth

3 жыл бұрын

The very first video on my side, Freud and beyond one, shows the chart.

Thank you so much for the amazing lecture. we see borderlines constantly shift between idealization and devaluation so is it right to say they can hold spiliting? And Confusing as a defense machanism is similar to psychotic because while using you can’t differentiate between good and bad.

@doncarveth

Жыл бұрын

Welll heir switching back-and-forth from one pole to the other IS splitting.

What you said about reenactment and the differentiation between that and the lacanians focus on words made me curious about what you think of gestalt therapy which is, as you may know, sometimes reffered to as a "somatopsychic" psychotherapy. Not only gestalt therapy, but other therapies influenced by psychoanalytic theory. Such as: transaction analysis, reality therapy, hypno-analysis etc.

@doncarveth

3 жыл бұрын

Well I think these offshoots from psychoanalysis risk mistaking parts for the whole.

Good point, but “ something a kin” can be conceptualized in different ways. Sometimes people speak of” oneness” when they mean a deep sense of connectedness, but connectedness means to getting connected, not one. No doubt in groups there is often a profound sense of connectedness and the diminishment of the sense of separate individuality.

why does freud say indifference first then hate then love?

Dear Prof. Carveth, Thank you very much for these Great lectures! I wonder about the role of the physical body in kleinian theory: on the one hand, you are describing her notion of enactment i.e. her attention to sub-verbal, bodily meaning and her concept of man as an animal against the lacanian school. On the other hand you talk about her dismissal of the „centaur“ model and her sociological perspective on human emotions. I dont quite get how the two of these positions are going together.

@doncarveth

2 жыл бұрын

I’m not sure what you mean by her sociological theory of the emotions. Melanie Klein herself never offered a critique of the centre model of Mann. In regard to the cloning theory of induced emotions via projective identification there is nothing implied here about body involvement. Projective identification is a nonverbal mental process.

Very good,, Thanks

this is my first real introduction to Klein, I've just read the paper and being somewhat familiar with Lacan, it's pretty straightforward to map these onto Lacanian theory, but what baffles me a bit is, what would Melanie Klein make of the "perverted" structure of Lacan? For him it is a wholly seperate psychic structure after all. thank you for the good content!

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

I’m not sure that clean and clean Ian’s have added much to the Freudian understanding of perversion. The best recent book on perversion is by the Italian analyst Sergio Benvenuto’s, “what is perversion?“ He is an ex Lacanisn Who draws on Lcan, Robert Stoler and Massoud Khan. I think Lacan is to rigidly structuralist about perversion and the other structures; there is much overlap. Best regards.

@beastpoet4335

4 жыл бұрын

@@doncarveth I finally figured out that the "clean" is supposed to mean Klein 😂 now it makes a whole lot more sense, Thank you for the input!

Well as primary narcissism does not exist then this wish is not a return to that hypothetical stage. I don’t see the wish to merge with a nip attend object but rather a wish to identify with it.

That's well described, "a re-enactment" & not just words....

@doncarveth

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, The Freudians call it a talking cure, but the cleans see a very large nonverbal component of the interaction that takes place.

I can not help associate psychosis with primary narcissism if associate borderline with PS and neurosis with D. So a developmental phase or a position is required for psychosis and the primary narcissism or whatever else than PS is necessary to finishing the puzzle.

@doncarveth

6 жыл бұрын

But infant research has shown primary narcissism as a stage of undifferentiatioin at the beginning, oceanic oneness, etc., does not exist, as Klein herself insisted. Psychosis belongs to PS. In this view the borderline is mildly psychotic. The division is PS?D, psychotic/neurotic.

could primary narcissism be the infants primitive phantasy. what is good is me what is not good is projected/expelled and therefore not me...from the infants perspective.

Thanks!

All this language of merger, windows, primary narcissism, needs to be replaced by a language of connection, identification.

I still struggle with seeing how going from PS to D is not a progression - you describe PS as ‘ primitive ‘ and Pertaining to the perception of ‘ part objects ‘ and D as more sophisticated and pertaining to perception of ‘whole objects’ - if we oscillate btw the two surely it preferable in evolution to be in D than in PS - why do we not arrive there and gradually leave PS behind ?

@doncarveth

3 жыл бұрын

Because passion is necessary and D is to dispassionate

Why do only infants only build up the inner world? Why are these feelings not more visible in one+ year olds and above? Certainly these conditions will vary depending on the innate characteristics of each infant-child.. Is it because psychoanalysts did not want to gain the wrath of parents? If everything originates in infancy, on a bed of unconsciousness, no one is on the hook for blame, and certainly not the parents. I suggest that the focus should not be on infant observation, but on early childhood. These same truisms may be the same that are observed during infancy, yet I believe they could be more reliable and greater relevancy would be placed on the parents. Parental behavior toward the child becomes more important. People do not get well without understanding family dysfunction. This reality is the reason the traditional psychoanalysis is failing, profoundly.