![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 2 to 26 of 26. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2009, at 12:14:31
In reply to Lacan, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2009, at 6:01:14
I fear not.
Does your university have anything in the library? Are there any libraries nearby with psychological literature? I'm sure there are books to be had from Amazon, but that's likely more expensive.
I understand if there isn't. I once donated to a local university to gain library privileges and was shocked with the lack of useful psychology books.
Posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2009, at 16:00:45
In reply to Lacan, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2009, at 6:01:14
Don't read the man himself, unless you are very good at that sort of thing.
I made no headway at all. More impenetrable than Marcuse.
Posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2009, at 16:08:43
In reply to Lacan, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2009, at 6:01:14
All I know about him and therapy is that he kept cutting the lengths of his sessions down. I forget if in the end his patients just sent their cheques. What the hell is the gaze, anyway? And then there were the maoists circling round. I preferred John Lennon
'But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow'.
Posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2009, at 16:47:57
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2009, at 16:08:43
Perhaps Slavoj Zizek is a Lacanian?
Posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2009, at 16:49:30
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2009, at 16:08:43
19,300 results for 'Lacan for Dummies' so there is plenty of demand but apparently no supply.
Posted by Damos on June 11, 2009, at 16:59:31
In reply to Lacan, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2009, at 6:01:14
Well now, I haven't read much of him but think you'll really like some of what he has to say, or at the very least find it interesting. I had these two sites book marked not sure if they're the kind of thing you were looking for. I actually came across via the book "The Unsayable".
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2009, at 23:55:41
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by Sigismund on June 11, 2009, at 16:49:30
Who are you guys talking about? Guess hit google. Phillipa
Posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2009, at 15:17:15
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2009, at 23:55:41
I found that book I had trouble with. Odd that it's still here. It is called "The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis", which sounds fairly straightforward, but there is a chapter called 'Sexuality in the Defiles of the Signifier'.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2009, at 2:42:47
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by Sigismund on June 12, 2009, at 15:17:15
my (former) t gave a talk about Lacan while i was away. something to do with making Lacan accessible for clinicians. does that mean he was thinking about me?
Posted by Sigismund on June 14, 2009, at 15:51:59
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2009, at 2:42:47
>my (former) t gave a talk about Lacan while i was away. something to do with making Lacan accessible for clinicians. does that mean he was thinking about me?
Given that Lacan cut down his appointments to 10 minutes, there could be some doubt.You could save 'sexuality in the defiles of the signifier' for a passionate moment.
Posted by backseatdriver on June 15, 2009, at 8:28:22
In reply to Re: Lacan » alexandra_k, posted by Sigismund on June 14, 2009, at 15:51:59
I've found this useful
Bruce Fink, "A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997).
It is available in paperback but I'd try the library first. It doesn't treat art directly but it is a useful introduction to Lacanian techniques. The variable-length session is just one of them. In Lacan's defense (but only just), it was used in cases where the analysand came overprepared to session. The analyst used the technique to force the analysand to stop intellectualizing and get to the emotional heart of the matter. Which, in these cases, tends to be a sort of obsessional anxiety or maybe rivalry with the therapist. The Lacanian approach is the most intellectual one I know of. Really abstract stuff. But fun, if you are willing to be a little confused for a while. Anyway, my 2 cents.
BSD
Posted by nellie7 on June 16, 2009, at 14:11:16
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by backseatdriver on June 15, 2009, at 8:28:22
I went to a Lacanian pdoc-analyst for some time and it was a srange and difficult experience. Things were said in a way that could not be understood- codes, substituting strange symbols for words, unusual metaphors, etc. For the most part, I didn't understand what was said but felt uneasy and under attack. After every session I would write down all that was said in a notebook. Years later I reread the notebook and suddenly understood the "code". The understanding totally devastated me and the result was a psychotic breakdown. The Lacanian approach may be ok for people who are simply curious or looking for an intellectual challenge, but I think it is dangerous for people suffering from psychopathology.
Posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 15:13:46
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by nellie7 on June 16, 2009, at 14:11:16
>For the most part, I didn't understand what was said but felt uneasy and under attack. After every session I would write down all that was said in a notebook. Years later I reread the notebook and suddenly understood the "code". The understanding totally devastated me and the result was a psychotic breakdown.
That is fascinating.
I didn't understand heaps of what my T said but it was probably easy-peasy by comparison....I'm just talking about 'holding' and 'bits of me in you' kind of stuff (Winnicott, Mahler, Klein), which may (for all I know) refer to projective identification. Even that, though it has been explained to me many times, I fail to grasp and likely never will now, becoming more stupid by the year.
What I want to know is.....when you understood the code and went psychotic, is that an understanding available to you now?
Posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 15:16:22
In reply to Re: Lacan » nellie7, posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 15:13:46
>I didn't understand what was said but felt uneasy and under attack
That is interesting too.
Posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 15:22:45
In reply to Re: Lacan » Sigismund, posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 15:16:22
>>I didn't understand what was said but felt uneasy and under attack
Maybe that's how Lacan managed to get the sessions down to 10 minutes? Good news for all concerned?
Posted by nellie7 on June 17, 2009, at 14:45:15
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 15:22:45
Hi Sigismund,
> I didn't understand heaps of what my T said but it was probably easy-peasy by comparison....I'm just talking about 'holding' and 'bits of me in you' kind of stuff (Winnicott, Mahler, Klein), which may (for all I know) refer to projective identification. Even that, though it has been explained to me many times, I fail to grasp and likely never will now, becoming more stupid by the year.
Lacan is not meant to be understood. I think the approach attempts to promote confusion :) The "symbols" are probably meant to be understood subconsciously, and that can explain the uneasy feelings I had long before understanding what was said to me. The analyst's tone of voice contributed to this as well.
Someone who writes the way you do cannot make a claim of stupidity :)
> What I want to know is.....when you understood the code and went psychotic, is that an understanding available to you now?I am not sure I understood your question. If you meant to ask if I still understand the code the way I did while psychotic, the answer is yes.
>Maybe that's how Lacan managed to get the sessions down to 10 minutes? Good news for all concerned?>
Yes, perhaps :)
Btw, you say that you didn't understand a lot of what your T said. How did that make you feel?
Nellie.
Posted by Sigismund on June 17, 2009, at 17:59:25
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by nellie7 on June 17, 2009, at 14:45:15
>If you meant to ask if I still understand the code the way I did while psychotic, the answer is yes.
Yeah yeah, that's what I meant.
>Btw, you say that you didn't understand a lot of what your T said. How did that make you feel?
Mainly a bit awkward.
She didn't do any of those ridiculous Kleinian interpreatations .....'now the daddy breast is feeding the mummy penis' or whatever.
It was always about her holding aspects of me to keep safe because I had put them into her.
My experience of therapy was basically positive, and I'm sorry yours wasn't.
Certainly the therapy I did placed a lot of emphasis on intuition, feelings and trust.
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 17, 2009, at 21:53:08
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by nellie7 on June 17, 2009, at 14:45:15
Nellie, did you mean actually psychotic or psychoanlaysis-psychotic, which is often a whole different beast? I mean, did you *actually* lose all touch with reality for more than a few hours or few minutes?
> Hi Sigismund,
>
> > I didn't understand heaps of what my T said but it was probably easy-peasy by comparison....I'm just talking about 'holding' and 'bits of me in you' kind of stuff (Winnicott, Mahler, Klein), which may (for all I know) refer to projective identification. Even that, though it has been explained to me many times, I fail to grasp and likely never will now, becoming more stupid by the year.
>
> Lacan is not meant to be understood. I think the approach attempts to promote confusion :) The "symbols" are probably meant to be understood subconsciously, and that can explain the uneasy feelings I had long before understanding what was said to me. The analyst's tone of voice contributed to this as well.
> Someone who writes the way you do cannot make a claim of stupidity :)
>
> > What I want to know is.....when you understood the code and went psychotic, is that an understanding available to you now?
>
> I am not sure I understood your question. If you meant to ask if I still understand the code the way I did while psychotic, the answer is yes.
>
> >Maybe that's how Lacan managed to get the sessions down to 10 minutes? Good news for all concerned?>
>
> Yes, perhaps :)
>
> Btw, you say that you didn't understand a lot of what your T said. How did that make you feel?
>
> Nellie.
>
>
>
>
Posted by Daisym on June 18, 2009, at 2:24:13
In reply to Lacan, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2009, at 6:01:14
I'd suggest starting with Annie Rogers' work - who bases a lot of her stuff on Lacan. I've studied Lacan for three years and it is fascinating but tough going. He is right there with Bion.
Read, "The Unsayable" It is a great places to start.
Good luck
Posted by nellie7 on June 18, 2009, at 3:38:16
In reply to Re: Lacan » nellie7, posted by Sigismund on June 17, 2009, at 17:59:25
> My experience of therapy was basically positive, and I'm sorry yours wasn't.
> Certainly the therapy I did placed a lot of emphasis on intuition, feelings and trust.It is good to hear that your experience of therapy was positive. It is also interesting that this is at all possible with the Lacanian approach:)
Posted by nellie7 on June 18, 2009, at 3:44:43
In reply to Re: Lacan » nellie7, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 17, 2009, at 21:53:08
> Nellie, did you mean actually psychotic or psychoanlaysis-psychotic, which is often a whole different beast? I mean, did you *actually* lose all touch with reality for more than a few hours or few minutes?
I meant literally psychotic- believing I was being followed, given indirect messages through the newspapers and radio, etc. This went on for months.
Btw, what is meant by "psychoanalytic-psychotic?
Posted by nellie7 on June 18, 2009, at 3:45:48
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by nellie7 on June 18, 2009, at 3:38:16
Posted by nellie7 on June 18, 2009, at 3:46:37
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by nellie7 on June 18, 2009, at 3:44:43
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:46:43
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by nellie7 on June 18, 2009, at 3:44:43
Oh Nellie, I'm sorry this happened to you. Did you recover by meds, if you don't mind me asking?
What I mean is, in the literature, sometimes there is referred to a concept of a sort of transient psychosis happening for the duration of a therapy session, and brought on by uncovering buried things--it's not really psychosis, because there isn't a full loss of reality like you experienced. It's maybe more dissociation. But I think contemporary psychoanalysis uses the term "psychosis" in the same way other therapists do--as a break with reality, lasting for a period of time. What happened to you. I was just trying to understand.
I'm very sorry. May I ask how you are doing now?
> > Nellie, did you mean actually psychotic or psychoanlaysis-psychotic, which is often a whole different beast? I mean, did you *actually* lose all touch with reality for more than a few hours or few minutes?
>
> I meant literally psychotic- believing I was being followed, given indirect messages through the newspapers and radio, etc. This went on for months.
> Btw, what is meant by "psychoanalytic-psychotic?
>
Posted by nellie7 on June 20, 2009, at 13:12:50
In reply to Re: Lacan » nellie7, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:46:43
Hi Amelia,
I am doing better now. I am taking an antidepressant only due to lack of tolerance of APs, and the acute psychotic symptoms have more or less subsided.
Thank you for your concern and for the explanation about psychoanalysis-induced psychosis.Nellie.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.