Neuroscience and psychoanalytic theory

Psychoanalysis, Ideology, Epistemology

This book is a group study work about the possibility that psychoanalysis and epistemology can reveal ideologies in social and political institutions. An ideology can infiltrate into science too and scientific literature. Many contributions try to analyze violence and how it may be concealed in social media and istitutions, and may explode in the long term. An essay questions if any ideology may be contained in psychoanalysis too. Some chapters outline the psychoanaliytc Institution resistence to openly express that the origin and the functioning of the mind cannot be explained today by Freud’s energy-drive theory: his Metapsychology has not even consilience today with neuroscience and psychoanalytic clinical practice even. From contemporary psychoanalytic clinical practices and from neuroscience a new metapsychology can be formulated, as described in this book. (…)

From Freud’s Witch to a new metapsychology

Psychoanalisys without Freud’s theory

Psychoanalysis changed since Freud’s time. Nowadays psychoanalysts work in a very different way from hundred years ago. A big development happened in clinical practice, but theory was disregarded. As a consequence, people who don’t work in the psychoanalytic field cannot know the theories which are implicit in clinical practice and hold on to the only knowledge that Freud outlined. In his Metapsychology the Master pointed out his energy-drive explication of the functioning of the mind: it was syntonic with the sciences of his time, it was easy to understand and became popular, as the specific schematic pcture of psychoanalysis. The Psychoanalytical Organizations (IPA) carefully attended to the clinical training of their members, but they did not promote the explicitation of new theories. Mostly, they did not promote a formulation of a theory that could be understood by everyone and characterized psychoanalysis, like Freud had been able to do for his time. As a consequence, we still find a popular picture of psychoanalysis which is obsolete and open to criticism, as it is not yet syntonic with what people may know about science. Today this bad image damages the whole field of psychoanalysis, despite its progress. (…)

The fucked Baron: the fucking off for all students

Poor Child. A psychoanalytic Story

Psychoterapies, Orientations and School: Science misconception and chaos in the psychoterapies craft

Clinical Psychology for Health workers training

The Doctor’s Mind. What does it means to humanize Medecine

Progress in medicine has made the physician’s practice more technical and has inevitably reduced the mental and operational spaces that he used to devote to the human relationship, which in the past he was able to establish with his patients. In this regard, the physician did effectively embody the Latin saying medicus ipse farmacum. Also the current medical training, with an ever increasing necessity for biological and technical knowledge and the continuous updating required in these fields, decreases the possibility for the doctor as a person to take care of the patient as a person. What Balint described in his book Doctor, patient, and illness in 1957 is a myth by now. Inevitably the organisation of hospitals and other health facilities has also become burocratic, erasing all possibility of being “humane”. (…)

Psychoanalitic Foundations of Clinical Psychology – New edition

Great misunderstanding exists when trying to comprehend what is meant by Clinical Psychology and its connections with Psychoanalysis. Just as vast is the misunderstanding of psychoanalysis itself: people talk about drive, Oedipus, libido, super ego and repression as if these were Freud’s “discoveries”. In fact, they are not discoveries at all, but concepts by which Freud tried to construct a theory –his metapsychology– using the means available at the time to explain what his ingenious method of exploration had found out and described in the clinical field. There is great confusion about what is meant by “discovery”, or rather by “theory” or “method”, just as there is confusion about the description of a phenomena and its explanation. Discoveries remain, theories change and methods develop. (…)