Listen, Jakob, you’ll think I’m making this up but I really do have to go remove the crankcase from my bike. I’ve thrown in the towel and I need to get it out so I can take it to a shop.
I will be following this, I just don’t want you to think you are writing some shit and I’m not reading. I’m reading.
I think so.
Maybe take your post more seriously.
I take it seriously, guy. Tell me more.
“What was so great, and how did I fuck it up?”
Im pissed off I had to become aware of all your stuff, with all the consequences.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, your premise on Jung has been refuted - not clear whether or not you’ve read him at all (just ‘them’, ‘Jungians’ I suppose) but not on Freud, and your interpretation of trauma has been narrowed down to the type resulting from abuse within family. Which is what Jung happened to deal with a lot in his clinic, funnily enough - so there might be something going on there, as well.
But can you be more specific?
Everyone can see it, Pedro. It’s been pointed out by several here only in the past weeks. And most saw it from the beginning, years ago. And there I thought we were actually going to create some works. I know its far more embarrassing for me as I lost a lot more.
Sincerely I have no way of knowing if you are actually managing to still keep it hidden from yourself - I can only interpret this thread, in which you have shown no interest in the material you proposed to discuss, your OP, as a violent attempt to keep it somewhat hidden.
Anyway. Just, fucking, enjoy your nibbling.
Stop, it’s not embarassing.
And I lost nothing.
Take it easy.
What is it that everybody sees?
edit - ok. Nothing. Good for you.
Listen, I’m here for it. What is it?
Listen, I’m sorry it worked out that way for you. I think you still have time. Probably it’s not going to be me that can help. But I think you should find someone.
Not a Jungian homeslice, enough with the fucking cults. Get a orthodox Freudian. Knowing the theory will help.
And call me afterwards.
Hahaha
God.
Well for what it’s worth, on topic, Jung was right that the subconscious must contain much more than can ever be repressed from the ego. E.g. DNA information, and the hypothetical rest of it which was acknowledged by our pious friend here. So Jung made a valid and actually quite crucial addition to Freud.
The rest is ridiculous but hopefully entertaining to Satyr and the others. Maybe Turd is lurking.
Well I mean listen, you don’t have to call me at all.
This is probably the biggest crime.
Repression is not always of the simple fact, but of the sane egoic context that gets spliced.
A person convinced that they were supposed to be raped by the very people supposed to protect them, because it’s “normal,” an “ancient reality.”
Of course it’s not normal at all, it is exceedingly fucked up. At the time, you had no way of connecting the wires of how these very people were doing something you couldn’t even explain.
A victim of sexual abuse by family is convinced that they are worthless, as that is the only input they receive from the world. The rapists are supposed to be the ones making you feel worthful.
But all your natural instincts, your actual egoic drive, yells in the other ear that that’s wrong, that you are not worthless. But this voice, unable to bypass the purposefully spliced “worthless” narrative, the one that is spliced in there to paper over what could not be handled (the fact that being raped by an adult in the family is horrific and fucked up) , it has to find fantastic trails it fashions out of the orphaned emotions. At the same time, these fantasies and compulsions need to satisfy short circuited drives. Like the psychopath who needs connection, and seeks it by stabbing a person, by violating their body to make contact with the core somehow.
Some gravitate to cults, papering a narrative over what is really the satisfaction of deranged drives.
But what deranged the drives? and why see it?
Because it gives power. Because being grounded in one’s self, in reality, is vision, and vision is power.
Things a worthless person cannot have:
This is why the first thing that has to come out in a good traumatic therapy is pure, unadulterated rage.
The ivory tower thing (other than being, for a Freudian, highly satisfyingly phallic) is what you realize is what is necessary.
Cold, abstracted, penetrating theory. The analyst is not there to be your friend. Not there to appeal to your fantasies. Not there to help rationalize, or dillute the quest. Not there to let theory disippate into mumbo jumbo vapour. Not there to get distracted by the particularities of the concrete case. He is only there to find in those particularities what will advance the medical process using known, established theory.
True psychoanalysis isn’t memorized. It is burned into the mind by seeing it work over and over, like a country doctor learns to treat whatever diseases are common in his area. It becomes an instinct, like any craft does. Its postulates begin to appear by themselves in nature, calling out like a timing belt is calling out to be replaced to a trained ear.
Simple, cold theory is what is most resisted, simply because it is what is actually powerful. The repressive mechanism resists it like death.
But, ironically, the rest of the system, and if any of it is still capable of desiring health, does listen to it. It recognizes the truth in it and desires the power it promises. It appreciates the analyst’s loyalty and commitment to truth, despite the thousand little blackmails attempted by the repressive desire.
I don’t expect to saw off a rotting limb and hear exclamations of joy. This is the secret to how a true analyst earns trust. The coldness of it also shows that the analyst is not personally involved in the transformation, no soul debts will need cancelling, nothing there is to be gained but by the patient, except for the satisfaction of having helped someone heal, and the general benefits to humanity of healthy people.
A trauma survivor is already a perennial target for manipulation anyway. Not participating in that exchange is largely what earns the analyst his trust. That’s also the genius of the original set up with the patient facing away. The analyst is an object, like another piece of furniture. The journey is into the subject’s own mind. The analyst has no place being personally involved.
It does require bravery, though. At the end of the day, like Morpheus in The Matrix, all an analyst can do is show the door. In fact, it is probably important that it be done this way. Being imposed on is already the life experience of a trauma survivor, which precicely you are trying to free them from.
Therefore an ivory tower, not a steel bulldozer. Static, stable, immovable. What point can there be in spiting an ivory tower?
The only real question a patient has to ask themselves is: where am I incoherent?
AI wall of text
Atla KG: How effective is Freudian psychoanalysis for treating secondary psychopathy (not primary psychopathy)? Summary only
God: Freudian psychoanalysis is generally considered low to modest in effectiveness for treating secondary psychopathy, and there is little strong scientific evidence supporting it as a primary treatment.
A few important distinctions:
Secondary psychopathy (often linked to trauma, emotional dysregulation, anxiety, attachment problems, and impulsivity) is usually considered more treatable than primary psychopathy.
Because secondary psychopathy often involves unresolved emotional conflict and trauma, psychodynamic approaches (descended from Freudian psychoanalysis) may sometimes help with:
emotional awareness,
attachment patterns,
shame/rage dynamics,
trauma processing,
impulse understanding.However:
Classical Freudian psychoanalysis itself is rarely used today for psychopathy specifically.
Research support is much stronger for:
trauma-focused therapy,
mentalization-based therapy,
schema therapy,
dialectical behavior therapy (DBT),
and some structured cognitive-behavioral approaches.Main limitations of psychoanalysis for secondary psychopathy:
Manipulation and lack of trust can interfere with treatment.
Insight alone often does not change antisocial behavior.
Long-term unstructured therapy can sometimes reinforce rationalization rather than accountability.
Severe antisocial traits predict poorer outcomes overall.Current clinical opinion is roughly:
Primary psychopathy: psychoanalysis is usually ineffective.
Secondary psychopathy: psychodynamic therapy may help somewhat, especially if trauma-related features are prominent, but structured evidence-based therapies generally perform better.So the short answer is:
Freudian psychoanalysis is not considered a frontline or highly evidence-based treatment for secondary psychopathy, though some modern psychodynamic methods may provide partial benefit in trauma-related or emotionally unstable cases.
Hey Atla, I have found your own thoughts and ideas stimulating, but your chatbot output is not welcome.
Well my own thought was that the pic you posted looks like a secondary psychopath, in case that’s you.