I’ll state this: pedagogy does not make room for the unconscious.
Otto Gross refers in a 1913 text to the asexuality of pedagogy, by which he means the exclusion of the bourgeois child from experience, from “Erleben”: from experiencing but also from undergoing, from living. Gross traces the anti-experiential bias to the original bourgeois divisions, to the insistence on separate (homo-)sexual identities. As the sexual roles between husband and wife (exclusive and coerced) are strictly regimented, the child’s role is that of a third party, the being on the side, split off from Erleben. […] Lire la suite ... >>
The experiences of cinema and psychoanalysis. Wartime. The mechanical ear of the analyst. Bion dreaming, buffalo running.
For a film goer to talk about a film they just saw – to truly talk about it: to account for their own experience of a film could be as difficult, or more, as talking in a psychoanalytic session.
Insofar as having an experience means communicating it to others – to oneself, included – can the film goer who, for a reason to be determined, wants to talk about it use an analyst to work him through a film or does he need to be taught how to recount an experience?
I was in one of your dreams? Yeah. Can you deal with that? Yeah.
A brilliant recent exploration of the nature of dreams, and their paradoxical (non-) place in our living environment is Jeff Nichols’s film Take Shelter (2012). In it a married construction supervisor named Curtis has nightmarish dreams of storms, or of a fantastic catastrophe, and of people attacking him. These dreams tell of lurking dangers in the present and of a coming ecological reckoning. The dreamer reacts by two contradictory sets of actions: one, he prepares for the imminent danger, and tears himself away from those who threaten him in his dreams, digs a hole in the ground, builds up his storm shelter. […] Lire la suite ... >>
Psychoanalysis is likened to voodoo, and seen as deriving from dreaming. The fright of the reader of psychoanalytical texts. Also: Masud Khan and the why of art.
I am not a psychoanalyst, nor am I seeing one. But I read psychoanalytical texts, and must ask myself why.
I mean I try to read mostly narratives of the analytical encounter and the analyst’s subsequent attempt to extract or abstract a number of still theoretical formulations that could be useful to him, and then to others. But I prefer it if the texts have an emotional significance, meaning that they are, at the end, tragically useless beyond what they describe. Freud’s “Dora” is a great narrative but is contested because the patient, at the end, does not return. […] Lire la suite ... >>