ShrinkWrapped

Misunderstanding the Mind

Sigmund Freud was by all accounts a difficult man who tended to be rather dogmatic about his ideas.  At the same time, his ideas about the ways in which the mind is organized evolved throughout his life.  He remains a giant because his attempts to understand and characterize the structure and workings of the mind continue to yield fruit long after his death, even though many of his original theories are now seen to be incorrect, incomplete, and overly simplistic. 

Yesterday, Ronald W. Dworkin wrote a review of Peter Kramer's new book, Freud: Inventor of the Modern Mind.   In his New York Sun piece,  Freud's Will to Power, Dworkin focused heavily on what he understood to be flaws in Freud's methodology and conclusions.  Dworkin, according to the information on the Amazon site for his book, Artificial Happiness: The Dark Side of the New Happy Class, is an Anesthesiologist, not a Psychoanalyst, but that does not stop him from commenting on Freud's theories and Freud's psyche:

Legend has it that Freud, although educated in the philosophies of his day, studiously avoided the work of Nietzsche to preserve the originality of his ideas against external influence. Nietzsche's analysis of the human psyche, how values were supposedly projections of people's unspoken jealousies and fears, ran dangerously close to Freud's idea (still a work in progress at the end of the 19th century) that the roots of conscious behavior lay in unconscious desires.

But after reading Dr. Peter Kramer's outstanding new biography of Freud (HarperCollins, 213 pages, $21.95), one wonders if Freud feared something else, not influence but self-knowledge, for Dr. Kramer's Freud is practically the living embodiment of Nietzsche's will to power. It's not simply that Freud was incredibly ambitious. (At age four, after soiling a chair, he reassured his mother that he would grow up to be a great man and buy her another.) Rather, it was Freud's determination to systematize the world, to bring order to chaos, and to impose his theory of life on life itself — a determination so intense that one of Freud's colleagues called it a "psychical need."

Dreams of Peace and the HISH Alliance

It seems that everyone in Washington is waiting for the Baker Commission to deliver its report on the best way to abandon Iraq.  Those who suggest that by withdrawing from Iraq (redeployment in the current euphemism) the Iraqis will somehow be forced to come to terms with the violence plaguing their nation and will find the requisite will and capacity to attain peace are basing their optimism on a wishful fantasy.  The premise that the American presence in Iraq is fueling the violence and without our provocations they will find their way, is actually partially correct; that is, once we leave Iraq, the violence will no longer be on our TV screens every night and will no longer dominate the news cycles.  In effect, our departure would end the War for our Media, the politicians, and the bulk of the American public.  The suggestion that by "talking" to Iran and Syria we will gain their assistance in lowering the level of violence in Iraq is also partially correct.  Unfortunately, both wishes rest on a picture of Iraq that is quite distant from reality.

First of all, those who believe that we need to bring our troops home as soon as possible imagine that the Iraq War is a mistaken detour in the War on Islamic terrorism.  Further, they do not recognize that the battle in Iraq is related to the other battle fields in the Middle East as part of a much larger war.

Ammar Abdulhamid is a Syrian author (now living in Silver Springs) who Blogs at A Heretic's Blog.  Last week he posted on the HISH Alliance:

The HISHee Rebellion!

The assassination of Pierre Gemayel is not some haphazard ill-timed event, but a carefully calculated one meant to help push Lebanon further and further along the path of internal implosion. And the HISH (Hezbollah-Iran-Syria-Hamas) Alliance is definitely to blame here, the particular considerations related to their particular decision-making and implantation strategies notwithstanding.

What is Reality and Why Does it Matter?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

This quote from the late Senator (D-NY) reflects a core tenet of Western Civilization since the enlightenment and has been under siege for the last 40 years by the forces of Post-Modernism, Leftist ideologies (including National Socialism which perfected the "Big Lie"), and contemporary Political Correctness.   Many Conservatives believe that eventually facts, and reality, will assert themselves, yet there is reason for great concern.

Psychoanalysts recognize that the unconscious mind is much more powerful in shaping our perception of reality than the conscious mind.  The concept of Psychic Determinism includes the recognition that our perceptions are shaped to such a degree by our expectations and our fantasies that the most fundamental perceptions themselves are questionable. 

The idea that perceptions are influenced by unconscious factors is a reason that even eye-witness testimony must be confirmed before the facts of a case are settled. 

A corollary to the concept would include the recognition that rationality is a thin construct, of very recent evolutionary vintage, which rests upon a foundation of instinctually driven irrationality.  As just one example, the ability to delay short term gratification in favor of longer term gratifications requires a rational assessment of the risks and rewards of our behavior.  Yet for most people, it is much easier to obtain the instant gratification and then use our rational abilities to explain the dysfunctional behavior in ways which do not threaten our self esteem or self concept.  An obvious example is the obese person who sees himself as overweight because of his "slow metabolism."  Slow metabolism does not explain why someone takes in more calories than they need; it is a partial explanation that allows them to minimize their shame at being unable to control their appetite.  In a similar vein, a married man having an affair who convinces himself that his behavior isn't harming anyone (and besides his wife is unresponsive), is merely rationalizing behavior which otherwise would cause intolerable guilt and shame; by such rationalization he is then able to continue to indulge the behavior.

People spend years in therapy trying to understand and change the distorted ways in which they perceive their reality, yet in some extremely significant spheres, we pretend that such problems do not exist.  This is as dangerous for our society as such distortion can be for an individual.

Some of our present difficulties in the Middle East are being compounded by the behavior of those who we have always relied upon to inform us of the "facts."  That the MSM has been failing for a long time is not news, but the levels of dishonesty and dysfunction are only now, in the age of the Blogosphere, becoming clear.

Mythology and War

One goal of Psychoanalysis is to clarify the unconscious myths about oneself and the important others in our lives that exert a powerful influence on current functioning.  We do this to help our patients understand themselves better and allow them to gain greater control over their lives.  The classic myth of the victim is that he or she has no control over their circumstances.  They are victims of their environment.  This personal myth, or fantasy, organizes how the person interacts with the world, including with important people in their world. 

I have written before about a young woman who felt herself to be a victim and (unconsciously) recreated her victim-hood in all manner of ways.  The young woman in Unintended Consequences, "Accidents", and Unconscious Processes had a minor car accident, which ultimately led us to understand the active role she took in maintaining her apparently passive victimization:

Early in her treatment a young woman patient who consciously was highly committed to therapy, was rushing to get to her appointment on time yet ended up missing the appointment because she had been involved in a minor car accident.  In the following session, she explained that she had pulled out of her garage (in the building in which she lived) and when she pulled into traffic, a car hit her from behind.  She hadn't seen the car and while upset at missing her session and by the accident, dismissed its significance with an airy, "accidents happen."  Therapeutic tact dictated that I approach the incident with some care.

I will not repeat here what we discovered in the course of her therapy beyond stating that the accident was the heavily over-determined outcome of complicated mental events in her mind, but it was eventually to lead her to being able to take a much greater, conscious role in the events of her life.

Sadly, those who look within to find the source of their victim-hood remain the minority.  It is easier on so many levels to continue to look at the external world to support the sense of oneself as a helpless, blameless, victim.  This is nowhere more true than in certain parts of the Arab world. 

The Council Has Spoken:

The winning Council post this week was Marc Schulman's elucidation of Our Rules of Engagement in Iraq (which I wrote about here); not surprisingly, our ROE seem designed to enable us to lose the war while maintaining a moral high ground that doesn't exist.   Callimachus won second place with Media Icons, a look back at some past media distortions which have, sadly, set the template for the current MSM depiction of our War against Islamic fascism.

Daled Amos won first place among non-Council posts for his look at the unseemly relationship between Congressman Conyers and Islam, more accurately, John Conyers and anti-Western radical Islamic fascism.   Democrats' Bait and Switch Election Strategy, posted at American Thinker, won second place with a look at the almost comical efforts of the Democrats and their allies in the MSM to back away from their irresponsible posturing for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as the reality of their new found power and responsibility set in.

As always, all the nominees can be found at the Watcher of Weasels and all will reward your time and effort.

My Uncle Lou

This is an unusual Blog post. I don't often write about personal matters and I try to post earlier in the day. Today is a little different. I have just returned from the funeral of my Uncle Lou, who passed away after a full, rich life at 91. Although Uncle Lou was, in reality, my Great-Uncle, I always thought of him as simply Uncle Lou.  He was the third of four brothers; my grandfather, who died almost 15 years ago, was the oldest. When the four brothers were together, in their younger years, they were amazing to behold. They could give the Marx Brothers a run for their money. My grandfather and his brothers supplied the kind of entertainment that TV can only dream about.

Uncle Lou's funeral was an occasion to remember and recount some stories about him.  It was also a reminder of what we are losing as the members of the Greatest Generation leave the scene.

In WWII, like so many other young men, Uncle Lou went off, in the infantry, to war.  He married my Aunt Betty before he left, and my Cousin Ina was born while he was overseas.  At some point after the war, Aunt Betty was reading a column about his Unit and learned he had been awarded a Bronze Star for actions during the Battle of the Bulge.  Years later, Uncle Lou's granddaughter submitted his name to the WWII Memorial Commission for inclusion in the Memorial.  During the process of substantiating his involvement, she learned he had been awarded the Bronze Star.  Today, many of Uncle Lou's relatives, including myself, learned about his medal; apparently, he had never spoken of his actions to anyone.

Happy Thanksgiving

On this most American of holidays, we should all be thankful for the wonderful things we have and, for those of us lucky enough to live in this wonderful country, thankful for the wisdom of the founders who have allowed us to continue to enjoy the greatest bounty of all, our freedom.

Saying Whatever Comes to Mind XV

In honor of Thanksgiving, the quintessential American holiday, the Squad has a pre-dinner conversation about American values and how they’re perceived (or misunderstood) around the globe.

The conversation spans the difference between values and culture, envy’s role in perceptions of America, and the challenges faced in fighting a war against a vicious and immoral enemy without compromising one’s soul in the process.

Download or listen to the The Sanity Squad: Thanksgiving Edition.

Risks, Risk Assessment, and Cassandras

Because Psychoanalysts see people who tend to have dysfunctional ways of approaching the world around them, it is fairly common for us to notice on-coming train wrecks well before our patients are cognizant of the disasters they often unconsciously facilitate.   Most young therapists will attempt to protect their patients by pointing out the impending danger and offering advice on how to best avoid the disaster.  ("You might want to think twice about dating that man, since you have already told me he drinks a lot and you have a history of getting involved with alcoholic men.")  Most young therapists quickly learn that such advice, even when sincerely desired by our patients, never works.  ("You're right, but this man is different from all the others I've dated.  He really loves me and he said he will cut down on his drinking if I want.")  What our prototypical young therapist soon learns is that when patients fail to see the impending train wreck that is so obvious to us, it is because they have a need, usually unconscious, to not see what is in front of their eyes.  To recognize the disaster means that they will have to start to think about their role in engineering the disasters (even if their role is a passive one), their tendency to make poor choices, the gratifications they get from disasters in their lives, and a whole host of other unhappy aspects of themselves that are uncomfortable and more easily left out of awareness.  Beyond this, patients will perform all sorts of mental gymnastics (which we refer to as defenses) to keep uncomfortable awareness at bay.   Of course, it is not only patients who use defenses; we all use defenses on a daily basis.  The question of when defenses become problematic is a difficult one, but I suspect all would agree that when a defense places a person in danger, it is no longer serving a useful purpose and has, in fact, become dangerous. 

Dr. Sanity examines the recent incident on a US Airways flight in which a number of Muslim Imams made a loud public show of praying on the plane and were subsequently removed by the authorities.  Almost immediately, CAIR leaped into action with that quintessentially American attack, a law suit, accusing the Airlines of "succumb(ing) to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam."  Dr. Sanity helpfully points out the difference between appropriate and inappropriate fear:

Considering Iran

A great deal of energy is being spent discussing the advisability of "engaging" Iran in discussions of the future of Iraq and the entire Middle East.  Many hope, without any particular evidence, that by such engagement, Iran will ultimately become a more responsible international citizen and in due course the threats that have been emanating from Iran's leadership will be ameliorated without the need for military action of further international isolation.  This hinges on a formulation that is worth examining.

In order to imagine that Iran can become a responsible member of the world community, it is necessary to see Iran's leadership in traditional political terms.  In other words, we must believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Nikita Kruschev rather than Adolf Hitler.   

The image of Kruschev presented to the West was of a buffoonish thug whose statements were bombastic and hyperbolic and not meant to be taken seriously.  While he vowed to "bury us", we were to understand, the Cuban missile crisis notwithstanding, that he was not interested in a nuclear exchange but was committed to proving that Communism was far superior to Capitalism in delivering a beater life to its people.  He was a true believer, but his belief structure required temporal superiority.  In fact, Communism was unworkable and the USSR required an empire to support its fantasies of greatness.

Hitler, on the other hand, was a different sort of true believer.  From his base in the greatest industrial nation in the world, he firmly believed that it was the racial superiority of the German that naturally lent itself to German supremacy.  His system was already the most powerful in the world in the late 1930s, with a motivated, hard working population, fueled by grievances, ready to wreak revenge on those who were not only inferior but were noted as obstacles.  Because Hitler's belief structure was inseparable from his identity, he could not tolerate losing a competition with his enemies.  In other words, losing WWII proved he was wrong about German racial superiority and was intolerable.  His country's failure required his death.

Compare this to Ahmadinejad, who I would suggest personifies the Iranian ideology.