Print

Print


  "Negative therapeutic reaction" is a separate problem from a patient not
accepting an interpretation. Take a look at a couple of psychoanalytic
dictionaries . Joseph Sandler in the PATIENT AND THE ANALYST has a fine
survey of the literature.  Freud talks about it in THE EGO AND THE ID.

What is the Winnicottian quote supposed to mean? Never make an
interpretation? What is an acceptable interpretation to him?
Did he just let his patients squiggle on? Was he a blank mirror? I doubt
it.

I detect some sort of inchoate animus toward dream interpretation. Dreams
are the "royal road to the unconscious". They require interpretation.

You might also consult Moore amd Fine,PSYCHOANALYTIC TERMS AND
CONCEPTS--some excellent bibliography on dreams and their interpretations.

Norm Rosenblood
















Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
8 Mayfair Place
Hamilton, Ontario
L8S 4G1

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Julie A. Kostrey wrote:

> I was grateful for both the sober and robust posts today - appreciated the reset.  Here's my two cents: symbols are clearly important.  However context and individual experience are equally vital - particularly when conducting dream work. My understanding is that Freud also believed in a "negative therapeutic reaction" - as brilliant as we may think our analyses may be, if the interpretation does not resonate with the patient intellectually or affectively, it is of little or no benefit to the patient to stubbornly insist on our version of the dream (it is in fact harmful). The analysand's dream can but does not always conform to a predetermined idea, lest the process becomes something reductive (not the fascinating, thought-provoking science/art it is). In "Use of an Object," Winnicott self-discloses about his practice and shortcomings as a clinician (which I find refreshing, highly beneficial and instructive): "It appalls me to think how much deep change I have prevented !
 or!
>   delayed in patients in a certain classification category by my personal need to interpret. If only we can wait, the patient arrives at understanding creatively and with immense joy, and I now enjoy this joy more than I used to enjoy the sense of having been clever." Sincerely, Julie Kostrey.  PS: I find it curious that we are now repackaging the notion of collective unconscious symbols as a Freudian concept - did I misunderstand?
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:         Norm Rosenblood <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender:       Discussion Group for Psychology and the Arts <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:         Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:41:10
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To:     Discussion Group for Psychology and the Arts
>               <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Symbolism and id-interpretation
>
>   Freud points out in the INTRODUCTORY LECTURES that sometimes the analyst
> cannot get the dreamer's associations; so. he falls back on universal
> symbolism as a last resort.
>
>
> One of the mainstays of dream interpretation is to analyse symbolism.
> Quite often it is hard work requiring a subtle awareness of the
> connotations of the dreamer's associations.
>
> To discard the analysis of symbolism is comparable to a chest doctor
> discarding his stethoscope.
>
> Freud, Abraham and Rycroft have written valuable papers on symbolism.
>
> It is important to avoid wild phallic symbol hunting. It has not helped or
> enhanced the reputation of analysis.
>
> Norm Rosenblood
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Norman Rosenblood, Ph.D., Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst
> Co-director, Hamilton Centre for Psychoanalysis
> 8 Mayfair Place
> Hamilton, Ontario
> L8S 4G1
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Claire Hershman wrote:
>
> > Thank heaven at last some grounded sense thanks Norman. A symbolic interpretation only makes sense if it moves the receiver of the symbol into the unknown. Other wise it's a sign.
> > My original question about  phallic narcissism got very very lost.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> > Claire odeon Hershman
> >
> >
> > On 14 Mar 2011, at 01:08, Norman Holland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear PSYARTers,
> > >
> > > The idea that Stonehenge represents a vagina, dentata or indentata, strikes me as simply crude and probably wacky.  I've been reading various posts in which people are interpreting symbols in the manner of Freud in 1910.  (He later said he had overdone the symbolism business.)  This kind of interpretation Erikson called "id-interpretation."  Where is the ego in all this stuff about automatic symbolizations?
> > >
> > > And whose fantasies and symbolic meanings are these?  To whom is Stonehenge symbolizing?  Isn't the core of psychoanalysis eliciting from the patient what this or that symbol or anything else means to the patient?  Has anybody talked to the people to whom these symbolic meanings are attributed?
> > >
> > > I plead guilty to using the idea of universal symbolism in my early writings.  It is easy and it is appealing.  But it has seemed to me since the early '70s easily overworked and seriously in doubt for the reasons given above: no account of ego; no account of the person symbolizing.
> > >
> > >                       --With warm regards,
> > >
> > >                                    Norm
> > > Norman Holland
> > >  [log in to unmask]
> >
>