She gives me a dream. She's at a prestigious academic conference to give a talk and she can't access her files from 'dropbox' to get started and is trying to stall by making jokes and charm the audience.
Her association to dropbox is 'drop trow'- which is an old expression for pulling down one's pants.
Her association to this is 80s movies. I ask her for the first particular 80s movie that comes to mind.
She mentions one and I ask her for the first thing about the movie that comes to mind.
She brings up an attractive female character who is trying to kiss a man but has food all over her face.
I ask her to describe the woman in this situation and we come to attractive, oblivious, and never going to "get the man".
I ask her to turn these into 'I statements" and after saying them out loud she acknowledges that they feel true.
You ask the patient to say more at this point and it may lead to a story about their past (i.e. narcissistic injury), it may lead to sharing a defense (i.e. melancholia) in which they share their "badness" with you, etc.
Make sure to let your patients know about ambivalence and that a part of them can love themselves or another and a part can hate themselves or another. Many have a tendency to dismiss exploration of a part of themselves because they feel like they will be judged as if it's the whole of them (by themselves or by the analyst).
You can also circle back around later and bring the 'drop trow' association to the dream at large and ask about the idea of standing in front of an audience of important people with one's pants down.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
a few comments on Spike Jonze's 'Her'
Spike Jonze's Her was one of those experiences where I was disappointed with the movie as an idea but felt myself compelled by the underlying mood of the piece. Phoenix, the starring actor, and the visuals were strangely compelling.
I've heard that people are reacting against it as sexist but that charge is so off the mark. It is a shining example of psychic bisexuality and self-conscious of that too.
I was surprised of how aware of space I was in the movie-- How much he spent time in his enclosed room and, in opposition, some shots with a lot of space above. This seems important for an volar ontology (probably trito).
Although the social commentary is supposed to be about technology I don't think that's where the importance lies. The artificial intelligence girlfriend has more to do with altruistic narcissism (narcissism qua early ontology) as someone you have instant access to and is always with you.
The social commentary is really in Phoenix's character writing professional hand written notes as an occupation. While the rest of the world may think it strange he has an AI girlfriend this is contrasted to others in "normal" relationships with embodied others who have no words to describe their feelings and have to pay others to feel for them. They have always lacked the primitive cognition that allows them to, for example, idealize a "crooked little tooth" on their alleged love objects on one hand, and, on the other are probably interacting with their "loved ones" based upon latency social ideals to do what is normal for the group and have repressed their pre-genital passions. The social commentary is that true love for the altruist can be satisfied by just communicating and feeling understood and by sharing mutual spontaneity and play. Those who would look upon this kind of relationship (today or in the past it would be people writing each other letters who live far apart) as weird or indecent do so because they only driven by love for social conventions and not by love for another person.
The symptom reading of the film would yield some interesting subject altruistic drives. For example, the surrogate sexual partner who wants to help Phoenix's character and his AI girlfriend would show his own impulse to want to "restore" the relationship between his friend Amy and her boyfriend. Additionally, his AI girlfriend Samantha loving multiple people and needing to leave him to go off with the other AI consciousnesses would show Theodore's (Phoenix) own pre-phallic impulses to love that don't require sexuality and take multiple objects. (I've mentioned this love before in regards to Freud's conception of the Saint in Civilization).Wanting to join the other consciousnesses and belong to a group without any principal of individuation gives a great illustration to the previous post on Schopenhauer's metaphysics of altruism. The 'participation mystique' with the group and altruistic impulses to bring in the person's who has fallen away from the group as shown in the 'sexual surrogate' all get depicted.
If Samantha is removed from the plot and her character's feelings are seen to express Theodore's then the best description is that he is manic. There are scenes in public where he is like an excited child playing games and without Samantha and love to justify it then he would resemble someone experiencing mania. Additionally, Samantha meeting with the AI modeled after Alan Watts before ultimately going off with the other AI consciousnesses provides a good sense for the mania in that she could experience boundless knowledge fostered in her through the father substitute (Watts).
I've heard that people are reacting against it as sexist but that charge is so off the mark. It is a shining example of psychic bisexuality and self-conscious of that too.
I was surprised of how aware of space I was in the movie-- How much he spent time in his enclosed room and, in opposition, some shots with a lot of space above. This seems important for an volar ontology (probably trito).
Although the social commentary is supposed to be about technology I don't think that's where the importance lies. The artificial intelligence girlfriend has more to do with altruistic narcissism (narcissism qua early ontology) as someone you have instant access to and is always with you.
The social commentary is really in Phoenix's character writing professional hand written notes as an occupation. While the rest of the world may think it strange he has an AI girlfriend this is contrasted to others in "normal" relationships with embodied others who have no words to describe their feelings and have to pay others to feel for them. They have always lacked the primitive cognition that allows them to, for example, idealize a "crooked little tooth" on their alleged love objects on one hand, and, on the other are probably interacting with their "loved ones" based upon latency social ideals to do what is normal for the group and have repressed their pre-genital passions. The social commentary is that true love for the altruist can be satisfied by just communicating and feeling understood and by sharing mutual spontaneity and play. Those who would look upon this kind of relationship (today or in the past it would be people writing each other letters who live far apart) as weird or indecent do so because they only driven by love for social conventions and not by love for another person.
The symptom reading of the film would yield some interesting subject altruistic drives. For example, the surrogate sexual partner who wants to help Phoenix's character and his AI girlfriend would show his own impulse to want to "restore" the relationship between his friend Amy and her boyfriend. Additionally, his AI girlfriend Samantha loving multiple people and needing to leave him to go off with the other AI consciousnesses would show Theodore's (Phoenix) own pre-phallic impulses to love that don't require sexuality and take multiple objects. (I've mentioned this love before in regards to Freud's conception of the Saint in Civilization).Wanting to join the other consciousnesses and belong to a group without any principal of individuation gives a great illustration to the previous post on Schopenhauer's metaphysics of altruism. The 'participation mystique' with the group and altruistic impulses to bring in the person's who has fallen away from the group as shown in the 'sexual surrogate' all get depicted.
If Samantha is removed from the plot and her character's feelings are seen to express Theodore's then the best description is that he is manic. There are scenes in public where he is like an excited child playing games and without Samantha and love to justify it then he would resemble someone experiencing mania. Additionally, Samantha meeting with the AI modeled after Alan Watts before ultimately going off with the other AI consciousnesses provides a good sense for the mania in that she could experience boundless knowledge fostered in her through the father substitute (Watts).
Saturday, January 4, 2014
the "metaphysics" of altruism, some thoughts on object altruism
Along with replacing pity with compassion to get rid of the taint being superior, passive-altruism can't be aligned with submissiveness because the power relation is there too.
Instead the opposite of being competitive with others is being amiable, genial, friendly, affable, warm, good-natured, good humored, cordial, gracious, etc.
If altruism is not to be egoism through a proxy then it must, as Schopenhauer writes, have nothing to do with the principal of individuation and therefore not recognize separation. To be altruistic towards others is simply to restore those who are out of harmony with the good group (defined, at its height in the proto-phallic stage, in active-egoism as the potent class of skilled or knowledgeable people) without increased happiness having been the goal, and with the harmony of everyone belonging (tacitly sharing some equality) as granting joy.
The primary identification at the end of the proto-phallic stage establishes the tie of the not-finite of perfection and death to the father imago, which in turn can be split by the mother by the denigration of the father imago to create the phallic deutero. The end of the proto-phallic stage therefore introduces individual identity and separation into the altruist, as relationality in regards to one's 'image' and care for this is born in the egoist.
I've been working on the object altruist and its bellerophon complex lately through some Cohen brothers films and a film called Adventureland (2009). The Cohen brothers films serve very well because they aren't films of competition, achievement, with the serious tone of power. They are very much films that are trying to be interesting, have various types of people that they try to capture, and are picaresque in their adventure style (again, as opposed to hero competes with villain in strength of will).
Adventureland captures very nicely the form of judgment in the object altruist. It takes place in a dingy amusement park and the main character has a love of Lou Reed and is an intellectual type. (I identified this as an Apollo type as opposed to the non-intellectual Dionysus type in my original article on psychic bisexuality). The opposition to the aesthetic judgment in the OE is seen in the lack of cleanliness, lack of the will in regards to having a more complicated art-form (compare to the classical music in film The Piano, or the production in a pop song vs. the messy sound and simple chord progression of Lou Reed), and the lack of control or possession in the romantic relationship. The intellectualism in the film, as with the Cohen brothers, is handled in either a "self-conscious" posturing or a general interest, or enthusiasm for ideas and not the power of ideas and the competition to control or possess them.
The individuation that appears for the altruist at the end of the proto-phallic becomes precious for the object altruist and he doesn't want to give it up. However, the bellerophon complex exists because individuation is new for the altruist and to triumph over the father-substitute would mean to both be alone in victory, when one is on top, along with the aggressive components that enter late along with individuation. The OA's brand of aloneness takes the form of boredom while for the subject altruist it remains tied to the separation from others who they would otherwise be devoted to.
Again, possessiveness and control of the love object would enter for the object altruist in the bellerophon complex but its a matter of emphasis. Similarly, true "anaclitic" idealization is just entering for the subject egoist's sexual relationships, but control, possession, and jealousy are dominant from earlier development.
Instead the opposite of being competitive with others is being amiable, genial, friendly, affable, warm, good-natured, good humored, cordial, gracious, etc.
If altruism is not to be egoism through a proxy then it must, as Schopenhauer writes, have nothing to do with the principal of individuation and therefore not recognize separation. To be altruistic towards others is simply to restore those who are out of harmony with the good group (defined, at its height in the proto-phallic stage, in active-egoism as the potent class of skilled or knowledgeable people) without increased happiness having been the goal, and with the harmony of everyone belonging (tacitly sharing some equality) as granting joy.
The primary identification at the end of the proto-phallic stage establishes the tie of the not-finite of perfection and death to the father imago, which in turn can be split by the mother by the denigration of the father imago to create the phallic deutero. The end of the proto-phallic stage therefore introduces individual identity and separation into the altruist, as relationality in regards to one's 'image' and care for this is born in the egoist.
I've been working on the object altruist and its bellerophon complex lately through some Cohen brothers films and a film called Adventureland (2009). The Cohen brothers films serve very well because they aren't films of competition, achievement, with the serious tone of power. They are very much films that are trying to be interesting, have various types of people that they try to capture, and are picaresque in their adventure style (again, as opposed to hero competes with villain in strength of will).
Adventureland captures very nicely the form of judgment in the object altruist. It takes place in a dingy amusement park and the main character has a love of Lou Reed and is an intellectual type. (I identified this as an Apollo type as opposed to the non-intellectual Dionysus type in my original article on psychic bisexuality). The opposition to the aesthetic judgment in the OE is seen in the lack of cleanliness, lack of the will in regards to having a more complicated art-form (compare to the classical music in film The Piano, or the production in a pop song vs. the messy sound and simple chord progression of Lou Reed), and the lack of control or possession in the romantic relationship. The intellectualism in the film, as with the Cohen brothers, is handled in either a "self-conscious" posturing or a general interest, or enthusiasm for ideas and not the power of ideas and the competition to control or possess them.
The individuation that appears for the altruist at the end of the proto-phallic becomes precious for the object altruist and he doesn't want to give it up. However, the bellerophon complex exists because individuation is new for the altruist and to triumph over the father-substitute would mean to both be alone in victory, when one is on top, along with the aggressive components that enter late along with individuation. The OA's brand of aloneness takes the form of boredom while for the subject altruist it remains tied to the separation from others who they would otherwise be devoted to.
Again, possessiveness and control of the love object would enter for the object altruist in the bellerophon complex but its a matter of emphasis. Similarly, true "anaclitic" idealization is just entering for the subject egoist's sexual relationships, but control, possession, and jealousy are dominant from earlier development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)