login::  password::




cwbe coordinatez:
809096
8580402

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA
permissions
you: r,
system: public
net: yes

neurons

stats|by_visit|by_K
source
tiamat
K|my_K|given_K
last
commanders
polls

total descendants::7
total children::4
5 K

show[ 2 | 3] flat


death is aph...0
KredenZ0
imnot0
.maio0
pht0
sioux0
horror lamarcki0
ni0
_0
aufhebung0
skurva.0
calmo1
denimkolos1
čo1
dita2
triyen2
pstmn3
Freudov kopernikovsky objav tu stale caka na nase znovuobjavovanie. Tato veta je tak trochu freudiansky PUN, slovna narazka, ktora je tiez jedna z nenapadnych operacii (spolu s prerieknutiami, zabudaniami, omylmi, vtipmi, snami…), cez ktore sa Freud dopracoval k obrysom nevedomia. Co mal povodne byt fyziologicky projekt, ktory chcel namapovat fyziku nervov na zvlastnu psychiku patologie, sa v case (Freudova pracovna metoda bola neustale prepracovavanie teorie pomaly v kazdom dalsom clanku- jeho texty su casto len hypotezy, ktore priamo dalej v nich odmieta a uz len preto su nezvycajne citanie) stale viac posuval do oblasti symbolickeho vyjadrenia nevedomia- nedokonalych dynamickych, funkcionalnych a topografickych opisov, ktorym vzdy nieco uchadzalo. Problem bol jednak v historicky nedostatocne rozvinutej neurovede, no dolezitejsie bolo, ze casom sa ukazovalo, ze lepsi opis fungovania nevedomia je jazykovy ako fyzikalny. Co vidime dnes, je aj snaha ozivit Freuda cez jeho prvotny projekt cez aktualne vedecke metodologie, niekedy sa tomu hovori aj neuropsychoanalyza.

Freudove prvotne intuitivne (Freud mal obdivuhodny vedecko-intuitivny tah na branu- predpovedal napr. synapsy, alebo aj objavy antropologie,lingvistiky dlho po nom) formulacie si vsak pockali na iny teoreticky pokrok, strukturalizmus ci pocitacovu vedu a teorie hier. A tu sme pri Lacanovi, ktory takto znovuobjavil Freuda. Ocistil ho celkom od reduktivneho biologizmu a nevedomie postavil do pozicie strukturacie jazykom.

Co je take dolezite pri tomto objave? Nevedomie je primarne. To je najdrsnejsie vyjadrenie preklopenia ludskej reality s dalekosiahlymi dosledkami, ak by ziskali svoju spolocensku vahu. Nejde o nejaku oblast vydelenu z nasej skusenosti- nasa skusenost je nim zalozena a prepletena. A ked hovorim o nas, nemyslim tak celkom to, co si pod “nami” bezne predstavujeme. To, co sa casom Freudovi podarilo ukazat bolo, ze Nevedomie “hovori” inak ako my- ze subjekt nevedomia a ego sa neprekryvaju. Mechanizmy nevedomia- ako myslenie (jeden by si nemyslel, ze je vysada nevedomej skusenosti)- prebiehaju casto bez zaznamenania. A prave neurozy ci psychozy nam cez rec symptomov (ale aj napr. vtipov) sprostredkuju tuto neznamu risu, ktora preto operuje a vladne potichu u kazdeho, len nie kazdy si vytvori skrze potlacenie patologicky utvar- comu ludovo hovorime nepekne dusevna porucha.

Lacanov navrat k Freudovi v nom otvara tri registre vyjadrenia ludskej skusenosti: imaginarny, symbolicky a realny- strukturalizmus nikdy celkom nezvitazil, nevedomie preto nie je len suchy strojovy kod, na ktorom bezia nase ega. Freud to uz videl sam- tento kod vzdy zakryva urcitu nedosiahnutelnost opisu reality. A propos, dalsia dolezita crta tohto objavu je primarne vztahovanie sa k svetu: ludske zvierata nie su nikdy nudni pozorovatelia, ktori racionalne vyhodnocuju svoje dalsie kroky- zakladna skusenost je zalozena na tuzbe- tuzba, ktora nie je emociou, tuzba, ktora plodi tuzbu, tuzba, ktora ma podobu zakona, tuzba, ktora pohana zivot, a ktora ho po prekroceni hranice zakona aj znici - hranica je vzdy len po sprostredkovatelnu realitu, realita nie je nikdy priamo dana.

Lacanov navrat bol hlavne klinicky navrat, vsetko co robil bolo pre rozvoj psychoanalytickej skusenosti vo Freudovom duchu. Tento specialny priestor medzi analytikom a analyzovanym je priestorom, ktory je predurceny pre vyslovne dotknutie sa a otvorenie nevedomia- analytik je ten, kto vie ako v tzv. transferencnej situacii analyzovaneho “zrkadlit” tak, aby svoje naviazania tuzby, ktore ho zvazuju, otvoril, aby sa takto sam (dolezite) oslobodil, samozrejme nie celkom, lebo tuzba vzdy zvazuje. Tato analyticka situacia je celkom odlisna skusenost s velkymi etickymi presahmi, ktora dala spolocnosti velke moznosti ako nebyt celkom otrokom svojho pana nevedomia.

Freud_Second_topography_1933.jpg


Freud-Complete Works
http://www.lacanonline.com
http://nosubject.com
http://www.lacaninireland.com/web/translations/
http://www.lacan.com




008090960858040208581000
aufhebung
 aufhebung      04.01.2019 - 13:47:39 (modif: 04.01.2019 - 13:48:06), level: 1, UP   NEW !!CONTENT CHANGED!!
nedavno vysiel zriedkavy sirsoverejny clanok kt detailnejsie rozobera cez freudovu optiku co robia resp nerobia konkretne druhy liekov na bolest, pozornost, smutok, uzkost, spanok...
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/11/19/the-psychopharmacology-of-everyday-life/

The story of psychopharmacology stretches from the advent of barbiturates at the turn of the century to the discovery in the early 1950s of the first antipsychotic, based on a powerful sedative used for surgical purposes that was described as a “non-permanent pharmacological lobotomy.” This drug, Chlorpromazine, led to the development of most of the drugs used today for psychiatric management. The proliferation of psychiatric medications, ones with supposedly less overt dangers, began in the late 1980s—at the same time, a watershed lawsuit was filed in the UK against the makers of benzodiazepines, a class of drugs used for treating anxiety and other disorders, for knowingly downplaying knowledge of their potential for causing harm. Today, psychopharmacology is a multibillion-dollar industry and an estimated one in six adults in America is on some form of psychiatric medication (a statistic that doesn’t even include the use of sleeping pills, or pain pills, or the off-label use of other medications for psychological purposes).

Until I started researching the history of psychopharmacology, I didn’t know that it was an antipsychotic that had spurred the developments of most of the medications we know so well today, such as Prozac and Xanax. But it was the issue of antipsychotics that first made me think about what we were trading as individuals, and as a society, in relying so widely on psychiatric meds. When I went to work in a psychiatric hospital during my training, nothing seemed more self-evident than the need to sedate a psychotic person. They were the most clearly “out of their mind” and the medications worked quickly to reduce psychotic symptoms, especially the auditory hallucinations that menaced these patients. How could this be wrong?

I see that question very differently today. For one thing, these antipsychotic medications still come, three generations after their arrival, with severe, life-threatening and life-shortening side-effects, from tardive dyskinesia (TD), or involuntary movement disorder, which can become permanent, to type II diabetes, obesity, dementia, cardiac arrhythmia, and even sudden cardiac death. This is to say nothing of a whole host of less severe side-effects, especially the overall blunting of the personality. Working in an inpatient unit, onecomes to know well what we called the “psychotic shuffle,” a characteristic way of walking among patients suffering from the bodily tremors caused by TD and the sedative effects of these medications.

What did we do before these substances? We hospitalized people, long-term, and tried various alternative treatments, which is expensive, especially compared to medications. But a major problem with the drugs is that people with severe psychotic symptoms—like schizophrenia, for example—commonly abandon them because the medications make them feel terrible. So these patients end up becoming acutely psychotic over and over, and have to be hospitalized and rehospitalized. Many of them now end up in nursing homes, which have come to be used as psychiatric holding pens in the absence of long-term psychiatric hospitals—many of which closed in the US as psychopharmacology took hold and became the dominant mode of treatment. Such nursing homes are facilities with little to no therapeutic program, intended to house the elderly and the severely disabled. How much money are we now saving by this system? Are we cutting short the lives of these patients by medicating them for life?

There are alternatives to this system. As Sigmund Freud posited decades ago, a psychotic person who is helped to pass through the most acute phase of their symptoms by being kept safe, and who then receives a continuous form of talk treatment, as well as some means of education or ability to work, can potentially stabilize without excessive medication. A fascinating, rare collective of psychoanalysts in Quebec known as “the 388” have created a clinic that provides psychoanalytic treatment and 24/7 emergency care to individuals suffering from psychotic problems. A study of eighty-two patients treated in their facility for three years or more demonstrated that the program was able to reduce incidences of hospitalization by 78 percent, while 82 percent were living autonomously and 56 percent were able to provide for themselves financially. Proving that such a course of treatment costs far less in the end than the conventional one, the 388 group has recently been asked by the Canadian government to open more facilities and expand its approach.

But that’s Canada. This is practically unimaginable in America. The scarcity of resources and the legal hassle a doctor could face would likely be enough of a deterrent to taking on the risk of treating those with severe mental illness, especially given that most medics graduate with too much loan debt to consider such a precarious experiment. And if one such facility did begin to gain traction, drug company lobbyists would surely work to quash it.

This is the extreme end of the story because schizophrenia has always been the most serious of the mental disorders and a litmus test for how our society views mental illness, how we treat it, revealing what our ethical position is toward those who are suffering psychologically. By that measure, it doesn’t look good: from what I have learned, we are trading more humane treatments for a solution that superficially seems effective, but on closer examination is not helping patients in any long-term way and may actually be killing them.

I am indeed a Freudian psychoanalyst, that strange anachronism maligned by psychiatry for not being as scientific as medication supposedly is, by virtue of the control studies that can be done with drug treatments. Modern psychopharmacology goes hand in hand with a psychiatric diagnostic system that has, over time, been redefined to rely on medicating symptoms away rather than looking at the structure of the mind and its complex permutations in order to work with a patient in a deeply engaged way over the long haul. Modern psychiatry is hailed as a scientific success story, and drug companies have profited from the fact that talking therapies are often thought to take too long, their results frequently dismissed as unverifiable. I question, though, whether we should demand verified results when it comes to our mental life: Do you believe someone who promises you happiness in a pill?

Psychoanalysis still has the power to intrigue people, it seems—so embedded is it in American popular culture. Psychoanalytic language has entered the vernacular and psychoanalytic concepts permeate the way we all understand human relationships, especially sexuality. I have the sense that we need it more than ever to help us with our discontents because there is enduring value in the Freudian understanding of, on the one hand, the unceasing conflictual relationship between civilization and neurosis, and, on the other, what talking, simply talking, can do.

Freud himself was anything but hostile to psychopharmacology. Indeed, he was a notorious experimenter with drugs, especially cocaine, whose anesthetic properties and psychological effects he was one of the first to discover and champion (until, that is, a host of his friends and family to whom he administered the drug became addicted, contributing even to the death of one friend whose morphine abuse escalated after using cocaine in tandem, until he eventually overdosed). Freud himself underwent a course of experimental hormonal therapy with the first neuro-endocrinologist to see if it would improve his mood. Such research became the foundation for sex-change therapies today, along with a number of other medical discoveries that earned that doctor seven nominations for the Nobel Prize.

Freud’s beliefs about the human psyche thus did not exclude his own quite liberal experiments with medication and medical procedures. Importantly, at the end of his life, Freud chose to forgo any pain medication after almost thirty surgeries for oral cancer, so that he could think clearly with patients and continue to write—though he never ceased smoking the cigars he loved that had almost certainly caused his disease. The lesson I take from Freud is that you can choose your poison, which is the reason I wanted to turn to the topic of drugs, using what I’ve learned as a psychoanalyst over the last two decades.

We do have a choice about whether to medicate and how we do so. I think we have forgotten this because of how easy it is to obtain pills, along with the pervasive idea that our problems are simply chemical or genetic. So I want to begin by recalling what the drug panacea is treating at the most basic psychological level: pain, attention, sadness, libido, anxiety, sleep. Freud was surprisingly insightful about these crucial aspects of the psyche, even from his earliest writings before the turn of the century. By elucidating some basic psychoanalytic notions concerning the most common “troubles” of the mind, and by focusing on the different categories of medications prevalently used, I hope to disrupt our blind passion for prescriptions.

008090960858040208580878
imnot
 imnot      04.01.2019 - 07:34:13 [2K] , level: 1, UP   NEW
Ad Lacan:
http://www.lacan.com

Tu su dobre clanky

00809096085804020858087808580980
aufhebung
 aufhebung      04.01.2019 - 13:04:33 , level: 2, UP   NEW
na lacanka treba ist opatrne: vysla zbierka textov pod nazvom Ecrits ale neodporucal by som ju len tak zacat citat

jeho hlavna praca boli seminare -postupne vychadzaju v prepise do FR a ANG- najskor pre uzku skupinu ako vyklad Freudovho diela pre francuzsku psychoanalyticku spolocnost odkial pre nezhody odisiel/bol exkomunikovany a prvy taky seminar pre sirsiu verejnost je seminar XI -styri zakladne koncepty psychoanalyzy- cize ak by som niekomu odporucil miesto ako ho spoznat- je to tam- tie prve seminare su ovela viac naviazane na "znovunachadzanie" freuda cez citanie jeho konkretnych prac

v tych ecrits su uz take doplnky k seminarom alebo zhrnutia ktore mozu posobit ako hieroglyfy bez tych seminarov

lacanov retoricky styl je tiez kapitola sama o sebe- nic mensie ako genius-polyhistor mi neprichadza na um co sa tyka jeho zaberu a prehladu- treba si zvyknut na ten styl lebo casto nejde metodou "toto su premisy a toto moje zavery"
a potom su dobre sekundarne citania jeho seminarov a stranky ako si dal ty alebo napr lacanonline.com ktore tiez vedia pomoct alebo wikipage nosubject.com

0080909608580402085808780858098008580984
čo
 čo      04.01.2019 - 13:14:34 , level: 3, UP   NEW
hlavne v niektorých tých seminýroch hneď v úvode Lacan vysype hustý zoznam literatúry, ktorú treba prečítať skôr, ako sa začítaš do seminára. inak sa jeho textu nedá rozumieť bez znalosti tej zdrojovej literatúry.

008090960858040208580558
čo
 čo      03.01.2019 - 10:51:56 (modif: 03.01.2019 - 11:17:01) [5K] , level: 1, UP   NEW !!CONTENT CHANGED!!
Sú sny iba odrazom náhodne pospájaných vnemov, nazbieraných počas dňa alebo v nich môžeme nájsť niečo viac? Pre Freuda a psychoanalýzu sú spolu s voľnými asociáciami, prerieknutiami, vtipmi a podobnými – vedome nekontrolovanými myšlienkami - spôsobom, ktorým prehovára nevedomie. Hoci koncept nevedomia nebol Freudovým objavom, Freud bol tým, kto tento koncept a jeho význam pre duševnú rovnováhu podrobne rozpracoval. Ide ďalej, než iba do oblasti latentných spomienok, myšlienok a pocitov. Vníma nevedomie ako podhubie, z ktorého vychádzajú skryté motívy a impulzy ľudského konania. V nevedomí nevládne racio, netrápia ho protirečenia. Je sférou princípu slasti, ktorý stavia rozhodovanie a konanie človeka vždy do vzťahu s nevedomými túžbami (nem. wunsch ako prianie – nestotožňuje túžby s potrebami). Istým východiskom, ktorým sa človek snaží vyplniť chýbajúce vedomie celej svojej vnútornej reality a svojho vzťahu k vonkajšej realite, ktorá je pre človeka tiež nepoznateľná vo svojej celistvosti, sú racionalizácie na vedomej úrovni. Tieto racionalizácie sú určitým premostením a výsledkom vzťahov medzi vnútornou percepciou a testovaním vonkajšej reality.

Vďaka represii-potlačeniu, zostáva vedomiu zamedzený priamy prístup mnohokrát k rozporuplným alebo pre superego neprijateľným túžbam. Ich realizácia a následné spracovanie sú umožnené iba sprostredkovane - cez psychické symptómy a psychické utrpenie. Pre Freuda je psychické utrpenie akým sú neurózy, psychózy a hystéria (dobové označenie pre súhrn symptómov, z ktorých sa dnes mnohé priraďujú následkom traumy a PTSD – ale nielen), určitým riešením, akým sa trpiaci človek navonok vysporiadava s potlačenými konfliktnými túžbami. Rovnako stavy úzkosti, depresie a nutkavé správanie sa vzťahujú k tejto túžbe. Sny, voľné asociácie, prerieknutia a vtipy, ktoré sú nepatologickými prejavmi nevedomia, potom umožňujú po vrstvách odkrývať toto tajomstvo, ktoré si človek v sebe nosí, a zostáva tajomstvom aj pre neho samotného. To sa deje v psychoanalytickej práci. Keďže potlačené nemôže prejsť z nevedomia do vedomia priamou cestou, naviaže sa na snové obrazy alebo voľné asociácie, ktoré sú pre človeka nejakým spôsobom spojené s pôvodnou potlačenou túžbou. Iba takouto okľukou je možné dostať sa k inak nedostupnému obsahu nevedomia.

Cieľom psychoanalýzy je samozrejme zbaviť človeka psychického utrpenia, prípadne mu pomôcť zodpovedať otázku, prečo sa vždy zas a znova počas života ocitá v rovnakých situáciách, ktoré sú spojené s utrpením. Túžba, s ktorou subjekt vstupuje do analýzy, je nájsť odpoveď na svoje trápenie a zbaviť sa ho. Trpiaci človek verí, že psychoanalytik disponuje poznaním, ktoré ho zbaví utrpenia. Pre Lacana patrí psychoanalytická prax do sféry etiky – v čom sa zásadne líši od tých prúdov psychoanalýzy, ktoré sa skôr snažia analyzovanému subjektu vnútiť svoju predstavu "zdravého ega". Pre lacanovskú psychoanalytickú školu je kľúčové, aby analyzovaný subjekt sám odhalil „pravdu o sebe“ ako subjekte, aby sám pomenoval svoju túžbu. Tu sa práca psychoanalýzy končí a je na subjekte, ako s týmto objavom ďalej naloží. Analytik tu slúži skôr ako spoločník alebo spoločníčka, ktorí analyzovaný subjekt usmerňujú na jeho ceste, no nesnažia sa naň preniesť svoje predstavy o „zdravom egu“.

Jedným zo základných konceptov lacanovskej psychoanalytickej školy je teda pomenovanie túžby, ktorá je kľúčom k bytiu subjektu ale aj k jeho utrpeniu.

00809096085804020858055808580569
aufhebung
 aufhebung      03.01.2019 - 11:40:52 , level: 2, UP   NEW
ked to tak citam cez oko nezasvatenych, moze sa zdat, ze nevedomie schematicky hotove niekde caka- ale je dovod, preco sa aspon od Descartesa na zapade tak dlho cakalo na podobny koncept ludskej skusenosti, a preco pre freuda- ktoreho pracovna metoda formulovat co najmenej "novot" a ak uz lebo sa bez toho nevieme zaobist- v case ktoreho sa liecebne pouzivala sugestivna hypnoza (neuspesne) na vsugerovanie zdravej psychiky- je tak nevyhnutne oznacit celkom ine operovanie tychto javov pre ktore ho pacienti vyhladavaju- kde si nevystacime ak pacientovi nieco racionalne empiricky vysvetlime (nie - nikto vas neprenasleduje) a jeho problem sa odstrani- to vsak neznamena ze nevedomie nema vlastne zakony kt sa daju odkryt ale minimalne to na zaciatku vytvara problem "rozdvojenia" ludskej skusenosti (co je kontraintuitivne)- a ze nasa kontrola nad nami je velmi citliva

dalsia vec, ktora mi pride neintuitivna- tie zelania ktore freud odkryval v snoch a neurozach (pre tuto skusenost nevedomia je dolezity libidonozny charakter tuzby/tuzba nie je neutralna- problem na ktorom sa rozisiel s jungom a zrejme aj dovod preco prepracoval povodny princip slasti a do jeho teorie prisiel tzv. pud smrti alebo "to co je poza princip slasti"), ktore podliehaju principu slasti- riesenim problemov nie je ich naplnenie ako sa moze zdat- naopak ich potlacenie je stavebnym prvkom ludskej skusenosti- nemozeme zda sa existovat ako stroje zelani- vonkajsia realita obmedzenosti je prilis kruta- a to je dovod preco sa historicky clovek stal clovekom- a teda ten princip slasti, je kvalitativne "ukludnovaci" homeostaticky princip aby organizmus vobec prezil a drzal si zachovavajuci odstup od "veci" ktora ho pohana/ preto napr oslobodzovanie sexuality od 7Otych ktore malo byt emancipovanim ludskeho odcudzenia tak velmi zlyhalo

008090960858040208580409
aufhebung
 aufhebung      02.01.2019 - 18:58:40 , level: 1, UP   NEW
-ak by ste chceli vkrocit do poznavania nevedomia a mate cas - odporucam zacat Freudovym Vykladom snov- jeho prva ucelena praca

-dobry zaciatok su aj jeho prednasky ktore su pisane pre laikov- v CR vysli zozbierane ako Vybrane spisy I. a vyborny vyber teorie zhustene je vo Vybranych spisoch II-III- vysli ako jedna publikacia odkial na zac by som dal Studie o hysterii a Prace k uceni o neurozach - vyhoda citania Freuda je ze akoby vzdy zacinal odznova tak vam vsetko vysvetli/ netreba ho citat niekde od zaciatku

- neodporucam zacinat Lacanom- najskor si treba osvojit Freudovu teoriu