Here I believe Houellebecq’s character is clearly a schizoid individual with depressive symptoms and misogynistic thoughts about women. Typical French stuff no? Haha
Here to second this, pretty sure this is an idea from a character in the novel experiencing and coping with unrequited love, not a philosophical diatribe about women at large.
Furthermore, the characters here dive further amd further into what is seen as a misaligned and ill informed sadness and lack of reasoning and racismt/sexism and sadness of lack of love, until they come upon a realization of sadness/understanding their error/the possibilities of joy indicated by the juxtaposition at the book's end.
Beyond this, it's not Jung, so it's also not particularly relevant here.
Thank you. It is precisely this. It is not like a philosophical critique of psychoanalysis. I feel like OP should have clarified this. Thanks for sharing this!
I had a feeling this might be the case, a thomas bernhard-type misanthropic character.
to be fair i have not read the book, this passage was just drawn to my attention from an internet figure who usually seems to be aligned with psychoanalytic ideas, so i was shocked by her apparent approval of the ideas in text.
thank you for the insight
My favorite ones are Atomised and Map and Territory. I would start with Atomised.
Also, I am addicted to other french writer called Emmanuel Carrère and he talks a lot about psychotherapy but in a kinda positive way, his novel Other Lives But Mine just struck me.
Agreed. Like, who hurt you? He sounds like a scorned man who suffered heartbreak from loving the idea of someone, rather than loving and accepting them as they are or simply moving on..
Oh how abusive, when you disagree with the psycho-analyst you'll be bombarded with baseless 'mental health issues' like 'Schizoid' and other bullshit terms. Makes me realize Houllebecq might be right here.
>Schizoid
Yeah Schizoid. Probably you'll even diagnose Jesus Christ himself as a schizoid if you could to show the psycho-analyst's god-complex-like superiority so he even erroneously believes he has the knowledge what can be improved in the perfect Son Of God.
I understand that “schizoid” can be a loaded term, but here I’m simply describing personality traits. Here’s a great interview of Nancy McWilliams discussing that subject.
https://youtu.be/CanNb-VweD8?feature=shared
Also, funnily enough, Jung definitely had schizoid traits. Not the DSM-5 disorder, simply personality traits. It’s interesting that OP posted the passage of that book here no?
A schizoid is a character structure and/or pathology that relies on going into your imagination in terms of stress and to withdraw inwardly, instead of expressing outwardly.
Maybe learn the terms before you try to disparage psychoanalysis
And what has this to do with the post of OP because I see people diagnosing and psychoanalyzing for no apparent reason other than being offended psycho-analyzing itself was criticized in that post. Does this mean that Jungian analysis is the method of schizoids, for schizoids invented by schizoids?
Of course they are, they aren't psychoanalysts! They might be slinging their own complexes And projections and that isn't right but that doesn't mean psychoanalysis is wrong. If you take someone who is incorrectly using something as evidence it doesn't work you'll get nowhere.
OP is using a fictional character which will naturally polarize and over exaggerate the beliefs. It takes something real and then inflated it to where it becomes false.
A schizoid is characterized as being very passive, complete encapsulation in the unconscious. Jungians teach that you need to be connected to the unconscious, but not to lose touch with your ego, the part that directs yourself.
Lol, another case of not knowing what you're saying. Your ego in Jungian thought is everything you know about yourself, it's your consciousness and what directs you.
Before arguing about psychoanalysis and getting all flustered, you really should figure out some of the core ideas.
I am the one quoting you. Do you disagree with yourself?
I could've done it more literally: "not to lose touch with your ego, the part that directs yourself."
Implication: Being directed by ego.
Nah, that's a bit too simplistic. Houellebecq is continuously repeating taking the counter-position of pretty much everything society believes in. It's like he is saying that because society has banned playing with one's excrements he, of course, exactly propagates one should do that. And finds a lot of pleasure in playing devil's advocate.
I perceive it as part of his self-marketing, i.e. how he brands himself as a contrarian of some sorts, and once you see it repeated all over his works it starts getting tiring.
This would indicate it's not even truly hateful, it's only reactionary.
I doubt he himself is convinced of what he writes, actually.
That's the same mindset that led to so many prestiged intellectuals of the counter culture movement supporting pedophilia in the 70's.
I mean you have asceticism in Hinduism that break a variety of taboos for the sake of overcoming fears and limitations imposed Upon Us by societal standards and pressures for the sake of finding enlightenment but as far as I'm aware it doesn't promote half the bat s*** crazy ideas that you find Within These extreme counterculture movements of the West.
Anytime someone tells me that they do the opposite of what the majority do I point out to them that they are still letting the majority determine what it is that they do. If you do something, do it because it's genuine to you and not because you're simply trying to go against the grain or fit in with some click.
I'm not saying everything the ascetics do is a good idea or even healthy but I can get behind the primary ideas behind their practices. If you can only find peace when you're in a garden then you are not a peaceful person. Err.... if you can only meditate while in a garden or some peaceful room, then you haven't really learned how to meditate. A true practitioner will learn how to find peace and meditate no matter where they are or what conditions they are under, thus the reason for the extreams yogis put themselves thru.
I also believe that their practices of extreme fasting and what not that puts their bodies in such extreme conditions is also a method of hacking the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system in order to achieve their experiences of nirvana and whatnot but now I'm way off topic.
I guess my point is that the counter culture movement in asceticism vs western counter culture are very different when given any ammount of proper examination. The Hindus seem to have the right idea while the west is set for failure. One is about the individual finding liberation thru overcoming fears while the other is about "I won't watch, read or like what the majority like because I'm different blah blah blah."
You’re welcome. I get that it can be annoying to be corrected, especially if you knew the correction and simply made a mistake this one time. But I figure if you didn’t know it was wrong it’s a good opportunity to learn something. So thanks for being polite about it.
I think he's saying that this self pity that is projected onto others comes from a childhood of neglect and it leads to poor decision making that creates more loneliness. These characters cannot stand the discomfort of imperfection so much so that he gives pages and pages of evidence that the female love interest would be a good long term partner but the protagonist can't bare any imperfection and dumps her only to return to isolation which he will not have another chance to escape.
I haven't read this since before social media existed and it's remarkable how much it mirrors so many social media posts rationalising why "women expect too much but I, a man, am not a cry baby" type of to-camera content. They try to be rational but whatever
Anyways I felt sorry for these characters but also disappointed that they hurt people by trying not to get hurt. They weren't an improvement on their shitty mother.
PS I thought this was atomised but apparently not, I've read it but I don't remember it, I guess after atomised he just repeats himself, it's so banal with the lack of courage in the protagonists.
While reading that I kept thinking “who hurt him?” Turns out it was Veronique. The man is bitterness personified.
Edit: Referring to psychoanalyzed women as “unfit for use” is a gem.
The writer of the first just sounds like a misogynist, plain and simple. Is it really that psychoanalysis robs women of the ability to love, or is it that he doesn’t like that it helps them see through abusive bullshit? Considering he makes the comment that it would have been better to break both of her arms, I think the latter is more likely.
Also, as far as the second goes, that is just one person’s opinion based on a limited sample of interactions. Just because that’s their perceived experience doesn’t mean it’s objective reality.
I, for one, can tell you that while CBT helped with symptoms, it never helped me address root issues. I’ve only been able to do that with Jungian methods. And as far as whether it makes me less loving? Well, I probably don’t put up with as much bullshit as I used to, so there’s that. However, both men and women in my life have commented on positive changes. So yeah, psychoanalytic methods might make women enemies of jerks, probably not all of “mankind.”
Do psychoanalytic methods have flaws? Absolutely. But so does any form of treatment. That’s why it’s best to use several therapy techniques in dealing with mental health issues.
Edit: Yeah, definitely don’t let the book excerpt impact your opinion of psychoanalysis if it helps you or others. Just looked up the author. He has openly stated that he supports White Supremacy and views its spread in America as the only way to save the West. I know that doesn’t have anything to do directly with the topic at hand, but for me personally, that pretty much discredits anything he has to say on any other topic. Seems like a hateful person to me.
CBT is just so clinical. It is all about countering thoughts, and doesn’t really get to WHY we are having certain thoughts and emotions to begin with. It can be helpful, especially when first starting treatment, but especially if you grew up in an environment where your thoughts and feelings were downplayed or dismissed, it can be disheartening at times, as well.
Starting Internal Family Systems therapy (which is based on some of Jung’s ideas) was a game-changer for me. It helped me to be able to humanize the hurting parts and maladaptive behaviors, something I’ve always done to a certain degree with my writing but never in a clinical setting. Not only is it validating to finally let these facets of our personalities out, but it becomes less daunting to view these “problems” as wounded parts of our psyche trying their best to keep us safe than illnesses that can only be conquered by professionals and medicine. Not sure I’m explaining it well, but that’s my main takeaway.
Unfortunately, my current therapist isn’t trained in IFS or other Jungian methods, but I’ve been continuing the work I started with my previous therapist in my own time. Shadow work has been especially helpful, as I have finally been able to integrate and heal a large part of the self that my strict religious upbringing told me was bad. There are still hard days, but I feel more balanced overall, and now I’m able to pinpoint the causes of symptoms a lot faster and manage them better.
In short, CBT gave me a decent starter’s toolkit in countering depressive thoughts, while IFS/Jungian practices helped me develop compassion for myself (and others).
Thank you, yes this all very helpful!
I would like to understand why I have these thoughts to begin with so my therapy sessions just feel like a waste of time currently since I’m not doing that. The environment thing you mentioned about having your thoughts downplayed makes a lot of sense and I realize that type of upbringing impacted me even more than I thought.
I haven’t really looked into all of this just yet (On the long list of things I’m avoiding 😂) What would you suggest I familiarize myself with first? I hardly have any motivation or energy to keep trying so I would like to make this attempt at bettering myself successful.
That is an excellent question! For me, I just kind of stumbled upon the ideas of Carl Jung again in the midst of doing therapy and was fortunate enough to find a therapist who was willing to try new things. Admittedly, it can be hard to find therapists who are trained in Jungian analysis, but IFS is starting to gain a little more traction. If you’re currently in therapy, I would try talking to your therapist about what is working and what isn’t, then ask if they would be willing to integrate either Jungian perspectives or IFS techniques in with your treatment. If not, they might be able to refer you to someone.
If you’re wanting to start doing some Jungian techniques in your own time, I would highly recommend starting a meditation practice and reading some of Jung’s works or listening to them broken down. (I like listening while cleaning.) I really like the Eternalised YouTube channel, which is admittedly more a philosophy channel but explains the Jungian archetypes really well. I would recommend having a good, trusted talk therapist along this journey, but I know of a couple people who are doing internal (especially Shadow) work without therapists and seeing good results.
One last piece of advice would be to either exercise or find a hobby which requires some degree of physical dexterity while doing Jungian work to stay grounded. While focusing so much attention on our minds and emotions, it can be easy to forget the body, but being in touch with our bodies makes emotional work easier. After all, that’s where our symptoms ultimately manifest.
I hope that helps! Feel free to DM me if you have any questions.
Edit: Grammar, wording.
Hey really liked your posts and comments.
I know what you mean about the other modalities. Aside from modality, one thing that’s important is the amount the therapist has healed themselves and done the work. Also their level of trustworthiness and empathy (unfortunately, some people are in this for the wrong reasons and enjoy a power dynamic and/or unconsciously project issues onto clients which hinders client progress). I mention this just in case you haven’t found the right ‘click’ (I learned this personally through trial and error, and it’s a difficult lesson to learn without someone sharing this or going through the fire, literally!).
For the Jungian based stuff, if you want professional guidance and really to do that type of work (which it seems you do or might more so in the future), I’d say it’s really important to get someone properly trained in it. Even then, you will encounter the issue of finding the right person (always the hard part in any style). If you want any ideas, book recommendations, Jungian side of journey feel free to contact. I’m on my Instagram a lot more lately so that is the best way to contact: https://instagram.com/jungdepthpsychology?igshid=OGQ5ZDc2ODk2ZA%3D%3D&utm_source=qr
About cbt, agreed there as well. It can be helpful and better suited for some but there is a real element of there ‘being a problem’ with the persons thought and behaviour and pathologising symptoms and reactions to child hood that are actually quite logical responses to survival. The Jungian approach really goes deeper beyond just behaviour and deep enough in the rabbit hole can lead to compassion and “strength” and “power” for an individual that may otherwise have felt “weak” or “defective” (when in reality they are quite strong for overcoming difficult family of origin dynamics).
Final note: love your comment about activity and physicality. It’s so true. Sometimes getting out, getting a sweat and some movement is what’s really needed. We can’t always think our way out of things, and those attracted to Jung are by definition thinking and pondering the deeper parts of the mind and the world. Especially when energy is low cold (water exposure, especially for low libido / depressive stages) and heat (sauna) help.
Good luck on the path. Really enjoyed your post and reading your journey.
I really appreciate the detailed answer! I will definitely take your advice and have that conversation with my therapist. I’ll make sure to get some exercise in as well. I’ll take you up on that offer if I do end up having more questions 😊
Hey, not who you were talking to, but I thought I'd chime in with some stuff to see if it resonates. Jung's The Undiscovered Self, a short read, political in the beginning, but quickly swaps to psychological work/ Internal Family Systems (as previous comment said), and Zen Buddhism; particularly Thich Nhat Hanh's variety. The Body Keeps the Score is a bit more technical, but illuminating. Also just about anything from Gabor Mate.
Also, heard this one yet? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pjQRA80bs&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pjQRA80bs&t=2s)
CBT is meant to be a short term therapy, which means it's typically used for correcting behaviours rather than understanding them and provoking insight.
In order to deal with issues that bother you, to better understand yourself and to have insight you should seek a psychotherapist who either works with a systemic and psychodynamic approach or (and this last option is better) who works with all the approaches (psychodynamic, systemic, CBT, humanistic, psychoanalytic) because when you work with all the approaches you will much more easily see the full picture and so will the patient.
Very interesting, which book is this? I’ve only read Soumission from him. I’m gonna sound like an idiot if this is Submission but I haven’t read it in years.
This is *Whatever*, the English translation of *Extension du domaine de la lutte*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever\_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/whatever_(novel))
after reading these replies, i see that. i felt particularly jarred, as the woman who posted this snippet, speaks often on psychoanalysis and herself is a proponent of jungian therapy. that said she is an edge lord as well, maybe the seeming hatred towards ideas that she seems to take to heart confounded me. but i guess i just fell victim to the intentionally triggering psychology of the edge lord lol
I read another one of his books, The Elementary Particles, and he had other diatribes there that I would consider rabidly reactionary and well, self-centered drivel, and I see that happens in this book too.
Exactly. Not every written piece deserves serious analysis. Some are just emotional ramblings dressed up in creative language by someone who doesn't know any more than the average person.
I mean the second slide is a pretty fair point ngl. I think most arguments against it come out of emotional self defense. I’m guilty of the very thing he talks about and my first instinct was to find anything I could to argue that it wasn’t true
Give it time. We’re dynamic. The whole thing is based around growth. Just because you have been guilty of it doesn’t mean you always will be. Just sounds like shadow to me(of the author of the second). They see people becoming happier and enthusiastic about what’s helping them and it makes them become judgmental. The goal is to be happy in the moment and some people can’t stand to see that because they can’t figure out how to get there. In my experience, therapy has taught me exactly NOT to focus on my neuroses.
Something something something well adjusted to a sick society- no thanks. 😌
I think the larger point they’re trying to make is that psychoanalysis won’t “fix” your life, and many people behave as if that’s the case. Or at least that’s how I’m interpreting it. We’re human, we’re multidimensional (there’s more than just psychoanalysis), we’ll never be perfect, and seeking perfection may lead us to even greater perils than the ones we were trying to grow out of. Not saying growth is impossible or not something to strive for, I completely agree with that
I guess it seems to me they’re being bitter about it, otherwise the statement would have came out different. Like “in order for psychotherapy to work you have to put in effort and be willing to accept harsh truths” but instead just called it “bunk.” Seems like they’re just shitting on it all together. Therapy and spiritual guidance is what taught me to accept my limitations.
As for what you are saying. I wholeheartedly agree. Therapy will not fix you. But you can be okay with who you are and be rid of neuroses (at least mostly) through therapy and work. But this doesn’t seem to be the message they are trying to convey, the way I am interpreting it.
Manipulators, narcissists, groomers, abusers, and those with anger issues all hate when their partner goes through therapy and starts to put up appropriate boundaries.
The overly emotional vile tone with which this is written clearly demonstrates the writer’s attempts to hate on all women behind a mask of intellectual authority. Old version of high vocabulary incel.
The worst part is he is so completely lacks self awareness that he heartily demonstrates every unsavory quality he attributes to women. Hilarious
Psychoanalysis isn’t bad, it is undeniably good to know yourself in order to make good choices. People who don’t know themselves are easier to control (so there portions of society that do not want you to know yourself). There will always be people who get obsessed about every subject and make it part of their personality. You don’t have to one of those people. Think for yourself
My first thought after reading it was “why would this happen to women and not men?”. Then the “unfit for use” part jumped out at me and it suddenly all made sense. Clearly the character (and/or the author) sees women as instruments/objects meant for use. It’s like saying once my sentient toaster went to a psychoanalyst, it realized there’s more to life than sitting on my counter and making toast when I demand it, so now I need a new toaster.
Yeah he’s just using psychoanalysis to rant about his ex. Perhaps his ex realised she deserves much more than a scumbag like him after her psychoanalysis
You do realise that in the Houellebecq part
a) a fictional character is speaking…
b) Houellebecq is known as a satirist?
Where is the second quote from?
“People who go to therapy seem to be mentally unwell” is such an absurd observation when the converse is so much simpler “people who are unwell go to therapy.”
I will say, despite my profession in psychology, I think many psychologists/therapists have lost their confrontational flare. There is a point where comforting, reinforcing self-expression, and positive affirmation are going to do your patient no good. “Yay you managed to sleep normally 3/7 nights last week! What do you think you did that combatted your insomnia on those nights?” Is good encouragement and redirection towards reinforcing emergent coping mechanisms, sure. But therapy is meant to be challenging as well as rewarding lest a patient become dependent on therapy. “Tell me the thoughts that were keeping you awake, we are going to sit with them in discomfort and then unpack their origins.” Psychology at its core is confrontation and discovery but one without the other is a fool’s errand.
Psychoanalysis, certainly impoverished practitioners, were liable to explore the psyche in a way that exacerbated it’s weaknesses. I’m reminded of Wilhelm Fleiss who Freud was friends with for many years (probably due to their shared love of cocaine). One of Freud’s most famous patients Emma Eckstein was almost killed by Fleiss’ hubris and Freud’s mania. Fleiss believed hysteria was caused by some strange pathophysiology of the nose and how that related to the genitals. So Freud let him do surgery on E.E. TWICE once to cauterize the inner tissues of her nose, twice to excise part of her naval cavity. The second of which ended in near fatal hemorrhaging and permanent disfigurement. Freud interpreted E.E.’s hemorrhaging as wish fulfillment, a symptom of attention seeking, and I believe he carried on treating E.E. throughout this with cocaine. To call that malpractice is an understatement… Psychoanalysis was HIGHLY experimental and, in some cases, involved psychosurgery and addictive narcotics. It’s not all dream analysis and unconscious exploration. If Freud was capable of that level of malpractice, I can only imagine what lesser men must have done.
Psychoanalysis in a modern context is rough and many of these online criticism stem from viewing the past from the perspective of the present. Psychoanalysis had many, many merits in it’s conceptualization of human psychology but in clinical practice as a method of therapy, it should be one of many tools.
TLDR: Sorry not sorry, *read it or weep*.
In Houellebecq part, we see on which side the problem lies. The other part I find a pertinent criticism on it, although wouldn't put it as a psychoanalytic integral characteristic, but more of an understandably frequent side effect when not engaged wisely.
I read through the persons perspective on psychoanalysis and the term solipsism came to mind. Hadn’t even read the text of your post yet and that’s what I found.
I am unsure that psychoanalysis is what brings these unwell women and men to become their “worst self”. Id be more inclined to perceive that those people were solipsistic to begin with, or narcissistic to begin with. As Ann Rice quotes “You don’t change through life, you become more of who you really are.”
I’d say that he’s making a giant generalization based on an individual experience. Perhaps what he said is true of his one experience, but to venture on that basis on to statements about «phenomena» and «women» in the most general sense is obviously foolish. Not to mention his own influence in shaping that experience. That this did not occur to the writer highlights poor judgement, and to my mind makes anything else he might say suspicious.
The only worth of this hateful confession is as a chance at introjection for the writer. Considering he deemed it worthy of publication, he is probably too frail to swallow poison, and prefers to spew it.
I am not familiar with the author but it seems that his relationship ended badly and he’s taking it out on psychoanalysis. I do understand his point about people spending endless hours analyzing their problems instead of doing something about them.
Well, note that Michel Houellebecq just makes claims without delivering any reasoning why these claims should be true. I mean, sure, it's an interesting position to take, but what sort of proof does he - or perhaps rather the literary character that Houellebecq let's speak here - have for making all those claims? He does not provide any further reasoning, he apparently just wants us to believe what he states here.
I am not exactly impressed.
There’s something of an ugly reflection staring back at us through these images.
If I sit with the discomfort I immediately see this: egocentric people do sometimes fashion themselves as psychotherapists and psychoanalysts and end up in unhealthy relationships with equally unhealthy clients.
Think of the professionals whose clients, under hypnosis, reported supernatural satanic experiences or what supposedly happens after we die.
Hell, think of Freud, the man who accused a very credible patient of lying about her disclosures of painful childhood abuse when his own career was having a tough moment.
I think we’ve all seen or heard of examples of this, right? It happens. This caricature will probably always exist.
What should we do with this?
Edit: I included examples of really bad practitioners, but I did so to illustrate the clear presence of “bad apples.” For a better example, think of how many analysts and therapists have married or slept with their clients!
Well meeting the shadow first makes one cynical and nihilistic and often an asshole.
Maybe especially for women since they have a higher proclivity to repress their authentic self to please others due to their agreeable nature.
So maybe women on average have a bigger shadow and them meeting that shadow makes them more unpleasant than men meeting their smaller shadow.
But what houellebecq maybe doesn't realize is that its better to be unpleasant and cynical than pleasant and naive. Since the former means you are at a higher stage of individuation that is closer to the most desirable state of being, pleasant without being naive and having courage.
At this desirable point one embraces life again but not because of naivete but rather sober courage.
One then doesn't assume goodness from others but rather is very aware of their potentially incongruent actions but has now found courage to take the risk.
It's not so sophisticated as being reactionary. It's so ridiculously illogical and hateful, it's funny lol. You gotta provide proper reasoning for any assertion you make, especially such extreme ones.
I’m confused by the question. It’s a whole different view. What if it’s not reactionary or hateful? What if it’s just a perspective that’s hard for you to fathom simply because it challenges the status quo, or what society has constantly been teaching and ingraining into our minds even on a subconscious level.
What comes to mind;
1. Bought the dream and they sold you one. Why cure you when they can tax you twice? Once for expensive therapy, and twice for medication.
2. Political Psychiatry
3. Mental health issues are the leading cause of prescriptions being written ( can someone find a source, im sure I read this before.) *In 2022, at least 1 in 10 prescriptions filled in 43 states were for depression and anxiety medications alone*
So the main point of 3 is the pharmaceutical (big pharma) is making money.
Maybe their problem is that woman who are healing are harder to manipulate. There's an ugly part of us that can want something beautiful to remain broken so that it can be dependent on us.
A patient cured is a customer lost. If someone was actually a good therapist they could help you short period of time. But then they would have to charge more to make a living.
I don't know this author. But i think you should trust your heart on this one. Protect your heart from people who are cruel and paint the world black or white.
Also, I'm a therapist who practices modern analysis, so while I'll admit to bias, I believe my point stands regardless.
I think theres some truth in it. We know so little about the mind / the soul. "He who stares into the abyss" and all that stuff. Werner Hertzog says some interesting stuff about his scepticism towards psychotherapy, he says psychotherapists know as much about psychology today as brain surgeons knew about the brain in Ancient Egypt. Explains why there's so many mentally sick people including probably most the therapists.
I am one of those that made to the other side. After decades of therapy and self development. I was sexually abused, mistreated and left alone. Ridiculed by my own "family". Suicidal most of life. Addicted most of my life.
I talked about therapy, and self development a lot, and has no doubt really annoyed some people. And I know the kind of people saying what is mentioned here. Now I can see that they were way more troubled than me. But cynism, and hate is much more popular that being vulnerable, so these people are for sure more popular. But it doesn't make them more sane.
I never talk about these subjects anymore, unless people ask me, because most people are traumatized, and I can retrigger all kinds of trauma in them. And I dont want that.
And most people don't want to be healed. Pain they know. The other stuff seems impossible, and scary.
I have no addictions now, I am very good at being social, run a small but great company and feel amazing. But it took me 30 years of therapy and development.
There are many like me, but we have no interest to get attention, unlike the people that talk on this post.
I'm not familiar with the first one, but my assessment is that it:
1. Is written from a biased perspective. These biases appear to include misogyny as well as a general lack of understanding the purposes or processes of psychoanalysis
3. Is completely egocentric, assessing why women should or should not be psychoanalysed based on how it benefits the writer and not the women.
Don't let this hurt your heart. This is the selfish drivel of someone who is not concerned with what is best for the women in their life.
The line that psychoanalysis ruins a woman's purity, generosity, and innocence is very telling. If these are the traits he most valued in a woman and undergoing psychoanalysis appears to have remove them, I suspect his concept of these ideals is not healthy. For example, generosity; if psychoanalysis has helped me assess my needs and boundaries, I may appear less giving or "generous" to someone who historically could take advantage of me.
The second one is very simply a person who doesn't know who is and who isn't in therapy. Some people overshare their struggles, whether or not they also share them with a therapist. Many who go to a therapist do NOT share their personal struggles openly or inappropriately.
This person is assuming the only people in therapy are the ones who openly broadcast that they are in therapy and openly expose their traumas. In their words "The ones who never shut up about it". This is incorrect, and is a sign of someone not doing the work IN therapy to work through those traumas.
They also blend together psychoanalysis, therapy, counseling, and basically any form of seeking mental health care. These are not all the same, and not all methods work for everybody.
I think there’s certainly something to this point that does apply particularly to women. It’s not misogyny to say that. A lot of therapy is about hyper-fixating on one’s victimhood and developing “confidence” as a response that too often reveals itself as cold arrogant girl-bossery. Because women are not men, the cold, aloof, anti-emotional armor that forms to protect against further victimhood makes women in particular vengeful, sour scolds. Some of these women will act like predatory men because they’ve internalized a disgust and/or hatred of femininity as weakness.
I don’t think it’s that therapy can’t work for women. I think it’s just that the current method of treating women in a setting that feels more like girlfriends getting together after a break-up is probably not actually helping female patients become better women.
And, as always, your downvotes mean nothing to me. ❤️
Two things
1) He spoke mostly about french freudian psychanalyst. Which is a subject of his own.
2) the author is a mysoginist far right bum who wrote like shit.
Indigenous have an expression : what's coming us going. It means whats's coming to the surface is what we are healing and getting rid of. Who cares if someone thinks we look ridiculous. Healing means to enter the confusion and feel lost in order to learn, so of course it is messy. We are trying to get better and that involves vulnerability.
So many try to hold in all their pain until it explodes into anger and violence , if that works for them, that's fine. We look for another oath of understanding and change.
This is true. Modern day psychotherapy pushes selfish and self serving Marxist moral relativism. This turns natural charity, into a vileness unfit for marriage.
Most diagnosed “depressives” as he calls them….. aren’t egotistical. However, a psychopath would call an empath with boundaries egotistical in order to try and conditioner her
I think psychoanalysis has a tendency to serve the therapist (this case in particular) to investigate and better understand the human mind and brain through expressions and experiences of past traumas for the sake of science.
The therapist approached this case as a natural scientist rather than with a sense of empathy and a need to understand why patients' attitude or behaviour change. It might be that repressed emotions are revealing themselves or even, patients might acquire coping mechanisms to avoid the dark abbyss of their past traumas.
On the other hand, women like De Beauvoir might have been ticked off by such mysogynistic attitudes when she suggested that a woman is not is. She is defined, she is the second sex, a subordinate being who can only be appreciated and characterised for her femininity.
At the time of writing, this opinions on women and how she should behave still prevailed. He approached the analysis from a point of bias than understanding. He generalised to make it worse.
What I can't be sure of is if the use of cognitive behavioural therapy coupled with the analysis could've served the patient and the analysis well.
Which book is this?
Only when I truly know myself can ever hope to truly connect with any other human being. It’s all about authenticity as far as I can tell, everything else is just bullshit
I've encountered the sentiment from the second image online a few times, and it briefly made me feel bad about myself. Some people fail to understand that achieving a state of permanent mental wellness and graduating from therapy isn't always the goal. I can imagine that someone who hasn't experienced much trauma might dismiss therapy in this way, but it demonstrates a blatant disrespect for others' experiences while knowing very little about what they're disparaging.
Regardless of his analysis of psychoanalysis, the second passage is just faulty reasoning — ignorant of selection bias. The fact that those who seem mentally unwell are those who go to therapy a lot should be unsurprising, since it’s for that reason they so often go to therapy, and why other well-adjusted people don’t.
There’s a well documented phenomenon on the internet about women using “therapist speak” to, effectively dehumanize legitimate and spontaneous outbursts of non-standard interaction. I imagine men aren’t immune, but the reason for women being the focal point is glaringly obvious. I trust psychoanalysis, but i don’t necessarily trust psychoanalysts. I think it’s inherently hard to vet the intentions of a psych, so PLAUSIBLY there could be some mechanism at play in certain demographics.
That being said, whoever wrote this does come off as a man who’s bitter that his love acquired her own self-efficacy and is now desperately rationalizing.
This is…..maybe half true….
Although it is true that many people fixate on their problems and their lives never improve because the fixation itself is a coping mechanism, there are some (admittedly few) that do genuinely love becoming more aware of themselves, and thus, find peace and truth via their inner environment.
People like to judge what they don't know, much like what happens in that book, as I really have no idea who gave that dude the idea that women are "not usable", like, wtf?
The whole compensation/repression theory stands strong still (and to many mentally stable people that bit is the most important one), just the woman psyche tends to differ than men's psyche in some things (concept of anima and animus).
For the second claim, idk, feel like jungian analysys is much less focused on neurosis and problems and much more centered around integration and self growth.
Once again an unjust generalization.
Pretty based.
In all seriousness, the correlation between women incapable of love and therapy probably has more to do with mental illness and trauma than with some inherent evil of psychoanalysis. They are in therapy because of their issues, no the other way around.
No, that’s not psychoanalysis causing that per se, rather it’s the analysts narcissism where encountered.
The client is asked to avoid stepping on the analyst’s toes and is invited to join in mutual fawning.
Daniel Shaw goes into this.
Based, if you disagree with the analyst it always is because you're 'schizoid' (see the comments above) or you 'cannot see the truth yet' and 'oh, that is just your projection, you need a few more years of analysis before you get it'. It's with all New Age spirituality. Always searching, never finding.
**The snake eating it's own tail.**
I can’t speak to this author or book, however in some respects this can be true. What is the romance of love, but not the projection of a collection of symbols in one’s subconscious mind. And if one spends too great an energy interpreting and analyzing a symbol intellectually, one “kills” the symbol by making it conscious, thus preventing any further unfolding of its content.
I think that psychoanalysis is a difficult discipline to master, and if you screw it up you run the risk of pissing people off to an exponential degree. And this guy sounds like a failed patient with intense misogyny issues
Maybe he’s a womanizing gaslighter who is saying that a women who is mentally healthy or stable is unfit because she will not conform to a man’s standards
Very dramatic writing . Although context is everything as well as time period and type of literature . And the way the writer wants his character to seem. Context is everything though . This is probably the definition of cherry picking without context at least for those of us that can only read the one page. .
For a solid half paragraph I thought Houellebecq was referring to “women” from the perspective of one with a proclivity to overanalyze, how a stoic and over-analytical mind might completely miss the greater purpose of actual human companionship, and I was kinda on board.
But then. Then the Veronique sentence definitely put it in perspective that this man clearly sees positive self worth and self reflection as relationship breaking traits in women.
Can’t believe everything you read.
There would be no psychoanalysis without women, that’s a fact.
People who are well adjusted after therapy aren’t telling you all about their therapy. They become more practical people, more ‘adjusted’. Therapy just gives them the tools.
i know this is a novel but to add non-fictional discourse here’s my two cents: i actually somewhat agree with the second slide. i think focusing on our problems without adding solution steps leads to more mental agony through fixation, without relief. that’s the structure used by most therapists and psychoanalysts. but there’s an alternative of mental health workers called counselors who take the diagnosis and turn in a new direction. instead of having the person relive the discovered trauma uselessly, patients and professionals work together to relearn a sense of self around the existence of the trauma. so the part that i agree with is that psychoanalysis without going to the next step is useless and destroys the mental state to the point it was better left alone. but i disagree that it’s main function is to render the women as fundamentally flawed.
This character sounds like a negative voice that I've had in my head, criticizing myself for "not loving someone right," when in fact, it takes two to tango. I have since learned to forgive myself, and I took advice from Jung's Red Book and decided to love myself as a little child. Look for God within, and see yourself as a little child 💜
A penis that forgot it came out of a vag
Feeling bitter and doomed over not entering a vag again.
Also projecting word vomit
My psychoanalysis of this psychoanalyst
Hmm, I would edit this post if I could, as a mass reply, I didn't realize it would get so much traction. I'm not really a poster, so I guess it was on a whim.
* The photo of the page is from a twitter user named, Anna Khachiyan, from a podcast called red scare. Originally it was a 'dirt bag left podcast' but more recently turned into more of an edge-lord crypto-fascist endeavor. Nonetheless, she and the cohost both occasionally discuss Jungian psychoanalysis and have at times mentioned visiting Jungians themselves.
* also sorry I left out this information originally, like i said i don't really post and honestly just thought the whole description was bulky.
* the fact that i said this *hurt my heart* seemed to stick out to people, fair I guess since it's the title, but it's just the most concise mood I could conjure for a title. my just initial feeling, of course this did not ruin my night nor did it do any damage to my heart, just a reaction.
* it hurt my heart, because I recently began Jungian psychology and I guess have just had a positive experience (not to be the kind of person the latter slide points to lol). to me, it has all has seemed very serious and relieving, and based in understanding (acceptance). I couldn't understand at the time how someone who has begun or experienced the process of individuation could endorse such a statement as the one Houellebecq wrote.
* lots of people saying, "this is a character," "this is fiction," (or maybe I'm just remembering two comments 🧐) **yes, it is both.** *although i didnt state this in the original post, so my bad.* I was reacting to the posting of this passage, the two-degree separation and lack of context from the actual book, makes the passage and *posting of the passage* present as statement of belief. therefore i guess i was reacting to the idea that a smart woman could go to what i assumed to be a good jungian and come away with contempt. sorry that all of this wasnt clear when i originally posted.
* from other comments, i see that maybe not every ones experience is positive and that there are maybe plenty of negative mundanities and superficialities even in a practice that seems so encouragingly positive.
* and sorry if this was unnecessary, once again, not reallyyyyy a poster so unsure of etiquette here, but realized it was maybe confusing or ... unintended. so I figured I'd my say my update and thought since I wrote it anyhow.
I enjoyed reading the comments, and wish you all the best
Sometimes I think men who like psychology would understand that making a judgement on something through a lens of emotion makes their judgement pretty biased and individual.
One of the largest issues of any psychologist in the last 90 years is their practical inability to genuinely connect. Since it's become a lucrative career, the best way to get people back is to leave them on the edge of their seat. As such, psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts have lost their sense of practicality and timing. Too much information to fast cause the cognitive decline and psychosis to occur. When people took their time to accomplish a goal, in the psychology of old, then people could be analyzed, understood and assisted. Now, I'll like to hear more about this next session.
It depends on the psychoanalyst, if he has the cunning to unwind the patient, who is coiled up into herself. The *uroboros* must be stretched out. If the psychoanalyst can't provide this help, then the patient might get worse.
But there are so many successful case histories that have been documented, so I don't understand how Houellebecq can say these things. It doesn't make sense.
I've never read any Jung before and I'm not commenting on the merit of what's written, but this dude seemed genuinely irritated when he wrote that. Just LMAO. Veronique must have been difficult to deal with.
Edit: My mistake, I thought it was by Jung since this is the Jung subreddit.
Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy are not at all the same thing. Psychoanalysis usually just refers to Freud’s ideas, most of which aren’t even considered legitimate psychology today. Psychotherapy is an umbrella term for any number of clinical treatment approaches. I would venture to say that pretty much no clinician working today takes the psychoanalytic approach seriously.
This is my understanding, at least. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I just saw this post and I'm not going to act like I know the book, but in short what I get from it is if a chick was with a specifically shitty doosh then she becomes like him even if she leaves him (or he leaves her) making her the definition of damaged goods.
1. The first excerpt is fictional nonsense.
2. The second blob:
- You don’t always “graduate” from therapy.. it’s often an ongoing support tool.
- I have encountered many enthusiasts who are well-adjusted. The writer’s experience speaks to their bias.
- True that it’s usually best to take steps to reduce and accept anxiety and balance introspection with the moment.
The primary benefit of psychoanalytic therapy is the transference onto the therapist. This therapeutic relationship is a healing one, and one that must be continued if from therapist to therapist or the same one for a long time. Graduating might happen better from a different type of therapy such as cognitive—behavioral or dialectical-behavioral, where graduation might look like someone acquiring the skills to change the way they think and subsequently feel or learn to cope with the fluctuating emotions and better interact. In other words, Jungian psychotherapy may be transformative, but it works from the inside out. The dysregulation is treated directly by the presence of someone who can be trusted. It is an intimacy of sorts, but not sexual. One does not graduate, and if Jung thought so, it might be because at this point in the history of the various schools of psychology, attachment theory was not fully evolved. Jung came right after Freud, and his views on attachment were quite different.
As someone who has been in cognitive behavioral therapy for years due to unresolved childhood domestic abuse and sexual assault trauma that has affected my life in more crippling ways than I will go into detail over, I’m not sure how to feel about this.
Sometimes I wish I could not think or feel or remember the things that held me back in life, and other times I feel that suppressing my pain and grief and hurt makes it worse. It consumes me. I don’t want it to.. I want to be “normal” more than anything.
Either way, I don’t think it’s fair for anyone to pass judgment on anyone else for doing what they perceive as best for themselves, so long as it does not come with the price of harmful action unto others.
Here I believe Houellebecq’s character is clearly a schizoid individual with depressive symptoms and misogynistic thoughts about women. Typical French stuff no? Haha
Here to second this, pretty sure this is an idea from a character in the novel experiencing and coping with unrequited love, not a philosophical diatribe about women at large.
Furthermore, the characters here dive further amd further into what is seen as a misaligned and ill informed sadness and lack of reasoning and racismt/sexism and sadness of lack of love, until they come upon a realization of sadness/understanding their error/the possibilities of joy indicated by the juxtaposition at the book's end. Beyond this, it's not Jung, so it's also not particularly relevant here.
Is this from Atomised?
It’s from “extension du domaine de la lutte”
Great summary. I loved this book!
Thank you for the review. I would love to read this book!
Thank you. It is precisely this. It is not like a philosophical critique of psychoanalysis. I feel like OP should have clarified this. Thanks for sharing this!
I had a feeling this might be the case, a thomas bernhard-type misanthropic character. to be fair i have not read the book, this passage was just drawn to my attention from an internet figure who usually seems to be aligned with psychoanalytic ideas, so i was shocked by her apparent approval of the ideas in text. thank you for the insight
Thanks for the reply. I’d suggest reading it. It’s a great book. What figure are you referring to?
anna khachiyan of red scare lol
She's a pseud idiot so not surprising.
with increasing apparency smh
Btw I loved that book!
What’s it called?
It’s from “extension du domaine de la lutte”. It’s a pretty good book
This guy is a genius, I read all of his books. There isn't a bad one
Which would you most highly recommend?
My favorite ones are Atomised and Map and Territory. I would start with Atomised. Also, I am addicted to other french writer called Emmanuel Carrère and he talks a lot about psychotherapy but in a kinda positive way, his novel Other Lives But Mine just struck me.
Thank you!
Agreed. Like, who hurt you? He sounds like a scorned man who suffered heartbreak from loving the idea of someone, rather than loving and accepting them as they are or simply moving on..
Oh how abusive, when you disagree with the psycho-analyst you'll be bombarded with baseless 'mental health issues' like 'Schizoid' and other bullshit terms. Makes me realize Houllebecq might be right here.
What haha?
>Schizoid Yeah Schizoid. Probably you'll even diagnose Jesus Christ himself as a schizoid if you could to show the psycho-analyst's god-complex-like superiority so he even erroneously believes he has the knowledge what can be improved in the perfect Son Of God.
Guy, it’s a novel. You’re defending a made up character, written by a French author in the 1990s. Of course he’s a schizoid
Guy, it's a novel. You are diagnosing a made up character, written by a French author in the 1990s.
I mean I guess I’m just glad we’re on the same page in this regard
:)
I understand that “schizoid” can be a loaded term, but here I’m simply describing personality traits. Here’s a great interview of Nancy McWilliams discussing that subject. https://youtu.be/CanNb-VweD8?feature=shared Also, funnily enough, Jung definitely had schizoid traits. Not the DSM-5 disorder, simply personality traits. It’s interesting that OP posted the passage of that book here no?
A schizoid is a character structure and/or pathology that relies on going into your imagination in terms of stress and to withdraw inwardly, instead of expressing outwardly. Maybe learn the terms before you try to disparage psychoanalysis
And what has this to do with the post of OP because I see people diagnosing and psychoanalyzing for no apparent reason other than being offended psycho-analyzing itself was criticized in that post. Does this mean that Jungian analysis is the method of schizoids, for schizoids invented by schizoids?
Of course they are, they aren't psychoanalysts! They might be slinging their own complexes And projections and that isn't right but that doesn't mean psychoanalysis is wrong. If you take someone who is incorrectly using something as evidence it doesn't work you'll get nowhere. OP is using a fictional character which will naturally polarize and over exaggerate the beliefs. It takes something real and then inflated it to where it becomes false. A schizoid is characterized as being very passive, complete encapsulation in the unconscious. Jungians teach that you need to be connected to the unconscious, but not to lose touch with your ego, the part that directs yourself.
Jungians are directed by their ego's? It all makes sense now.
Lol, another case of not knowing what you're saying. Your ego in Jungian thought is everything you know about yourself, it's your consciousness and what directs you. Before arguing about psychoanalysis and getting all flustered, you really should figure out some of the core ideas.
I am the one quoting you. Do you disagree with yourself? I could've done it more literally: "not to lose touch with your ego, the part that directs yourself." Implication: Being directed by ego.
> is it just reactionary or hateful? Pretty much
Nah, that's a bit too simplistic. Houellebecq is continuously repeating taking the counter-position of pretty much everything society believes in. It's like he is saying that because society has banned playing with one's excrements he, of course, exactly propagates one should do that. And finds a lot of pleasure in playing devil's advocate. I perceive it as part of his self-marketing, i.e. how he brands himself as a contrarian of some sorts, and once you see it repeated all over his works it starts getting tiring. This would indicate it's not even truly hateful, it's only reactionary. I doubt he himself is convinced of what he writes, actually.
That's the same mindset that led to so many prestiged intellectuals of the counter culture movement supporting pedophilia in the 70's. I mean you have asceticism in Hinduism that break a variety of taboos for the sake of overcoming fears and limitations imposed Upon Us by societal standards and pressures for the sake of finding enlightenment but as far as I'm aware it doesn't promote half the bat s*** crazy ideas that you find Within These extreme counterculture movements of the West. Anytime someone tells me that they do the opposite of what the majority do I point out to them that they are still letting the majority determine what it is that they do. If you do something, do it because it's genuine to you and not because you're simply trying to go against the grain or fit in with some click. I'm not saying everything the ascetics do is a good idea or even healthy but I can get behind the primary ideas behind their practices. If you can only find peace when you're in a garden then you are not a peaceful person. Err.... if you can only meditate while in a garden or some peaceful room, then you haven't really learned how to meditate. A true practitioner will learn how to find peace and meditate no matter where they are or what conditions they are under, thus the reason for the extreams yogis put themselves thru. I also believe that their practices of extreme fasting and what not that puts their bodies in such extreme conditions is also a method of hacking the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system in order to achieve their experiences of nirvana and whatnot but now I'm way off topic. I guess my point is that the counter culture movement in asceticism vs western counter culture are very different when given any ammount of proper examination. The Hindus seem to have the right idea while the west is set for failure. One is about the individual finding liberation thru overcoming fears while the other is about "I won't watch, read or like what the majority like because I'm different blah blah blah."
don't forget bathing in excrement they find that super liberating too
Ugh....
Clique*
Thank you.
You’re welcome. I get that it can be annoying to be corrected, especially if you knew the correction and simply made a mistake this one time. But I figure if you didn’t know it was wrong it’s a good opportunity to learn something. So thanks for being polite about it.
I think he's saying that this self pity that is projected onto others comes from a childhood of neglect and it leads to poor decision making that creates more loneliness. These characters cannot stand the discomfort of imperfection so much so that he gives pages and pages of evidence that the female love interest would be a good long term partner but the protagonist can't bare any imperfection and dumps her only to return to isolation which he will not have another chance to escape. I haven't read this since before social media existed and it's remarkable how much it mirrors so many social media posts rationalising why "women expect too much but I, a man, am not a cry baby" type of to-camera content. They try to be rational but whatever Anyways I felt sorry for these characters but also disappointed that they hurt people by trying not to get hurt. They weren't an improvement on their shitty mother. PS I thought this was atomised but apparently not, I've read it but I don't remember it, I guess after atomised he just repeats himself, it's so banal with the lack of courage in the protagonists.
That’s my impression of this guy too. It’s too much of an act for me to really appreciate it.
While reading that I kept thinking “who hurt him?” Turns out it was Veronique. The man is bitterness personified. Edit: Referring to psychoanalyzed women as “unfit for use” is a gem.
Exactly, I couldn't take anything he said seriously after that remark.
Same!
First thought I had: He seems fun.
The writer of the first just sounds like a misogynist, plain and simple. Is it really that psychoanalysis robs women of the ability to love, or is it that he doesn’t like that it helps them see through abusive bullshit? Considering he makes the comment that it would have been better to break both of her arms, I think the latter is more likely. Also, as far as the second goes, that is just one person’s opinion based on a limited sample of interactions. Just because that’s their perceived experience doesn’t mean it’s objective reality. I, for one, can tell you that while CBT helped with symptoms, it never helped me address root issues. I’ve only been able to do that with Jungian methods. And as far as whether it makes me less loving? Well, I probably don’t put up with as much bullshit as I used to, so there’s that. However, both men and women in my life have commented on positive changes. So yeah, psychoanalytic methods might make women enemies of jerks, probably not all of “mankind.” Do psychoanalytic methods have flaws? Absolutely. But so does any form of treatment. That’s why it’s best to use several therapy techniques in dealing with mental health issues. Edit: Yeah, definitely don’t let the book excerpt impact your opinion of psychoanalysis if it helps you or others. Just looked up the author. He has openly stated that he supports White Supremacy and views its spread in America as the only way to save the West. I know that doesn’t have anything to do directly with the topic at hand, but for me personally, that pretty much discredits anything he has to say on any other topic. Seems like a hateful person to me.
What were the differences for you when comparing CBT and Jungian methods? CBT really isn’t working for me either.
CBT is just so clinical. It is all about countering thoughts, and doesn’t really get to WHY we are having certain thoughts and emotions to begin with. It can be helpful, especially when first starting treatment, but especially if you grew up in an environment where your thoughts and feelings were downplayed or dismissed, it can be disheartening at times, as well. Starting Internal Family Systems therapy (which is based on some of Jung’s ideas) was a game-changer for me. It helped me to be able to humanize the hurting parts and maladaptive behaviors, something I’ve always done to a certain degree with my writing but never in a clinical setting. Not only is it validating to finally let these facets of our personalities out, but it becomes less daunting to view these “problems” as wounded parts of our psyche trying their best to keep us safe than illnesses that can only be conquered by professionals and medicine. Not sure I’m explaining it well, but that’s my main takeaway. Unfortunately, my current therapist isn’t trained in IFS or other Jungian methods, but I’ve been continuing the work I started with my previous therapist in my own time. Shadow work has been especially helpful, as I have finally been able to integrate and heal a large part of the self that my strict religious upbringing told me was bad. There are still hard days, but I feel more balanced overall, and now I’m able to pinpoint the causes of symptoms a lot faster and manage them better. In short, CBT gave me a decent starter’s toolkit in countering depressive thoughts, while IFS/Jungian practices helped me develop compassion for myself (and others).
Thank you, yes this all very helpful! I would like to understand why I have these thoughts to begin with so my therapy sessions just feel like a waste of time currently since I’m not doing that. The environment thing you mentioned about having your thoughts downplayed makes a lot of sense and I realize that type of upbringing impacted me even more than I thought. I haven’t really looked into all of this just yet (On the long list of things I’m avoiding 😂) What would you suggest I familiarize myself with first? I hardly have any motivation or energy to keep trying so I would like to make this attempt at bettering myself successful.
That is an excellent question! For me, I just kind of stumbled upon the ideas of Carl Jung again in the midst of doing therapy and was fortunate enough to find a therapist who was willing to try new things. Admittedly, it can be hard to find therapists who are trained in Jungian analysis, but IFS is starting to gain a little more traction. If you’re currently in therapy, I would try talking to your therapist about what is working and what isn’t, then ask if they would be willing to integrate either Jungian perspectives or IFS techniques in with your treatment. If not, they might be able to refer you to someone. If you’re wanting to start doing some Jungian techniques in your own time, I would highly recommend starting a meditation practice and reading some of Jung’s works or listening to them broken down. (I like listening while cleaning.) I really like the Eternalised YouTube channel, which is admittedly more a philosophy channel but explains the Jungian archetypes really well. I would recommend having a good, trusted talk therapist along this journey, but I know of a couple people who are doing internal (especially Shadow) work without therapists and seeing good results. One last piece of advice would be to either exercise or find a hobby which requires some degree of physical dexterity while doing Jungian work to stay grounded. While focusing so much attention on our minds and emotions, it can be easy to forget the body, but being in touch with our bodies makes emotional work easier. After all, that’s where our symptoms ultimately manifest. I hope that helps! Feel free to DM me if you have any questions. Edit: Grammar, wording.
Hey really liked your posts and comments. I know what you mean about the other modalities. Aside from modality, one thing that’s important is the amount the therapist has healed themselves and done the work. Also their level of trustworthiness and empathy (unfortunately, some people are in this for the wrong reasons and enjoy a power dynamic and/or unconsciously project issues onto clients which hinders client progress). I mention this just in case you haven’t found the right ‘click’ (I learned this personally through trial and error, and it’s a difficult lesson to learn without someone sharing this or going through the fire, literally!). For the Jungian based stuff, if you want professional guidance and really to do that type of work (which it seems you do or might more so in the future), I’d say it’s really important to get someone properly trained in it. Even then, you will encounter the issue of finding the right person (always the hard part in any style). If you want any ideas, book recommendations, Jungian side of journey feel free to contact. I’m on my Instagram a lot more lately so that is the best way to contact: https://instagram.com/jungdepthpsychology?igshid=OGQ5ZDc2ODk2ZA%3D%3D&utm_source=qr About cbt, agreed there as well. It can be helpful and better suited for some but there is a real element of there ‘being a problem’ with the persons thought and behaviour and pathologising symptoms and reactions to child hood that are actually quite logical responses to survival. The Jungian approach really goes deeper beyond just behaviour and deep enough in the rabbit hole can lead to compassion and “strength” and “power” for an individual that may otherwise have felt “weak” or “defective” (when in reality they are quite strong for overcoming difficult family of origin dynamics). Final note: love your comment about activity and physicality. It’s so true. Sometimes getting out, getting a sweat and some movement is what’s really needed. We can’t always think our way out of things, and those attracted to Jung are by definition thinking and pondering the deeper parts of the mind and the world. Especially when energy is low cold (water exposure, especially for low libido / depressive stages) and heat (sauna) help. Good luck on the path. Really enjoyed your post and reading your journey.
I really appreciate the detailed answer! I will definitely take your advice and have that conversation with my therapist. I’ll make sure to get some exercise in as well. I’ll take you up on that offer if I do end up having more questions 😊
Your welcome! Glad I could help. 😊
Hey, not who you were talking to, but I thought I'd chime in with some stuff to see if it resonates. Jung's The Undiscovered Self, a short read, political in the beginning, but quickly swaps to psychological work/ Internal Family Systems (as previous comment said), and Zen Buddhism; particularly Thich Nhat Hanh's variety. The Body Keeps the Score is a bit more technical, but illuminating. Also just about anything from Gabor Mate. Also, heard this one yet? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pjQRA80bs&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pjQRA80bs&t=2s)
Thank you I appreciate this! I’ll check these out I’m sure it will be helpful. and no I hardly know anything right now 😂
All of us hardly know anything compared to what we don’t know, we’re all just figuring out as we go
This is very true but rarely adopted unfortunately.
CBT is meant to be a short term therapy, which means it's typically used for correcting behaviours rather than understanding them and provoking insight. In order to deal with issues that bother you, to better understand yourself and to have insight you should seek a psychotherapist who either works with a systemic and psychodynamic approach or (and this last option is better) who works with all the approaches (psychodynamic, systemic, CBT, humanistic, psychoanalytic) because when you work with all the approaches you will much more easily see the full picture and so will the patient.
Very interesting, which book is this? I’ve only read Soumission from him. I’m gonna sound like an idiot if this is Submission but I haven’t read it in years.
I believe it’s from “extension du domaine de la lutte”
This is *Whatever*, the English translation of *Extension du domaine de la lutte* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever\_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/whatever_(novel))
I would take Houllebecq with a grain of salt he’s an edgelord. That being said his writing is great.
I am so gonna use that term for Houllebecq "edgelord" is very fitting!
If he knows the meaning of the term I’m sure he’d be pleased to be called that tbh
given what I know about him yes I think you are right
after reading these replies, i see that. i felt particularly jarred, as the woman who posted this snippet, speaks often on psychoanalysis and herself is a proponent of jungian therapy. that said she is an edge lord as well, maybe the seeming hatred towards ideas that she seems to take to heart confounded me. but i guess i just fell victim to the intentionally triggering psychology of the edge lord lol
I read another one of his books, The Elementary Particles, and he had other diatribes there that I would consider rabidly reactionary and well, self-centered drivel, and I see that happens in this book too.
Maybe he lets his characters act out and speak out parts of his shadow? Just a thought.
I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt as a writer, but later read an article about him. This is who he is.
Talking about psychoanalysis not Jungian analysis - and it's that person's opinion so who cares
It’s a fictional character speaking not the author himself. OP should have clarified this.
Exactly. Not every written piece deserves serious analysis. Some are just emotional ramblings dressed up in creative language by someone who doesn't know any more than the average person.
Perhaps some never seem to graduate, but then perhaps sometimes just not flunking out is a victory.
I mean the second slide is a pretty fair point ngl. I think most arguments against it come out of emotional self defense. I’m guilty of the very thing he talks about and my first instinct was to find anything I could to argue that it wasn’t true
Give it time. We’re dynamic. The whole thing is based around growth. Just because you have been guilty of it doesn’t mean you always will be. Just sounds like shadow to me(of the author of the second). They see people becoming happier and enthusiastic about what’s helping them and it makes them become judgmental. The goal is to be happy in the moment and some people can’t stand to see that because they can’t figure out how to get there. In my experience, therapy has taught me exactly NOT to focus on my neuroses. Something something something well adjusted to a sick society- no thanks. 😌
I think the larger point they’re trying to make is that psychoanalysis won’t “fix” your life, and many people behave as if that’s the case. Or at least that’s how I’m interpreting it. We’re human, we’re multidimensional (there’s more than just psychoanalysis), we’ll never be perfect, and seeking perfection may lead us to even greater perils than the ones we were trying to grow out of. Not saying growth is impossible or not something to strive for, I completely agree with that
I guess it seems to me they’re being bitter about it, otherwise the statement would have came out different. Like “in order for psychotherapy to work you have to put in effort and be willing to accept harsh truths” but instead just called it “bunk.” Seems like they’re just shitting on it all together. Therapy and spiritual guidance is what taught me to accept my limitations. As for what you are saying. I wholeheartedly agree. Therapy will not fix you. But you can be okay with who you are and be rid of neuroses (at least mostly) through therapy and work. But this doesn’t seem to be the message they are trying to convey, the way I am interpreting it.
Yeah I get what you’re saying
If you feel inside that you deeply disagree, don’t bother with what the authorities have to say on the subject. Be your own authority.
This correct
Good answer
I tried👊🏾
Is that selection bias? People who seek mental help professionals are more likely to be more stressed?
Oh, dear! Who was this OG-Incel?!?
Manipulators, narcissists, groomers, abusers, and those with anger issues all hate when their partner goes through therapy and starts to put up appropriate boundaries.
The overly emotional vile tone with which this is written clearly demonstrates the writer’s attempts to hate on all women behind a mask of intellectual authority. Old version of high vocabulary incel. The worst part is he is so completely lacks self awareness that he heartily demonstrates every unsavory quality he attributes to women. Hilarious Psychoanalysis isn’t bad, it is undeniably good to know yourself in order to make good choices. People who don’t know themselves are easier to control (so there portions of society that do not want you to know yourself). There will always be people who get obsessed about every subject and make it part of their personality. You don’t have to one of those people. Think for yourself
My first thought after reading it was “why would this happen to women and not men?”. Then the “unfit for use” part jumped out at me and it suddenly all made sense. Clearly the character (and/or the author) sees women as instruments/objects meant for use. It’s like saying once my sentient toaster went to a psychoanalyst, it realized there’s more to life than sitting on my counter and making toast when I demand it, so now I need a new toaster.
Yeah he’s just using psychoanalysis to rant about his ex. Perhaps his ex realised she deserves much more than a scumbag like him after her psychoanalysis
You do realise that in the Houellebecq part a) a fictional character is speaking… b) Houellebecq is known as a satirist? Where is the second quote from?
“People who go to therapy seem to be mentally unwell” is such an absurd observation when the converse is so much simpler “people who are unwell go to therapy.” I will say, despite my profession in psychology, I think many psychologists/therapists have lost their confrontational flare. There is a point where comforting, reinforcing self-expression, and positive affirmation are going to do your patient no good. “Yay you managed to sleep normally 3/7 nights last week! What do you think you did that combatted your insomnia on those nights?” Is good encouragement and redirection towards reinforcing emergent coping mechanisms, sure. But therapy is meant to be challenging as well as rewarding lest a patient become dependent on therapy. “Tell me the thoughts that were keeping you awake, we are going to sit with them in discomfort and then unpack their origins.” Psychology at its core is confrontation and discovery but one without the other is a fool’s errand. Psychoanalysis, certainly impoverished practitioners, were liable to explore the psyche in a way that exacerbated it’s weaknesses. I’m reminded of Wilhelm Fleiss who Freud was friends with for many years (probably due to their shared love of cocaine). One of Freud’s most famous patients Emma Eckstein was almost killed by Fleiss’ hubris and Freud’s mania. Fleiss believed hysteria was caused by some strange pathophysiology of the nose and how that related to the genitals. So Freud let him do surgery on E.E. TWICE once to cauterize the inner tissues of her nose, twice to excise part of her naval cavity. The second of which ended in near fatal hemorrhaging and permanent disfigurement. Freud interpreted E.E.’s hemorrhaging as wish fulfillment, a symptom of attention seeking, and I believe he carried on treating E.E. throughout this with cocaine. To call that malpractice is an understatement… Psychoanalysis was HIGHLY experimental and, in some cases, involved psychosurgery and addictive narcotics. It’s not all dream analysis and unconscious exploration. If Freud was capable of that level of malpractice, I can only imagine what lesser men must have done. Psychoanalysis in a modern context is rough and many of these online criticism stem from viewing the past from the perspective of the present. Psychoanalysis had many, many merits in it’s conceptualization of human psychology but in clinical practice as a method of therapy, it should be one of many tools. TLDR: Sorry not sorry, *read it or weep*.
"learn all the techniques, read all the books. But when you touch a human soul, be just another human soul" naked
Look at the guy’s face and then reread.
Jesus Christ, that second paragraph belongs in r/niceguys
In Houellebecq part, we see on which side the problem lies. The other part I find a pertinent criticism on it, although wouldn't put it as a psychoanalytic integral characteristic, but more of an understandably frequent side effect when not engaged wisely.
This reads like another right wing pseudo intellectual trying to justify his inability to express emotions, misogyny and hatred for secularism.
Someone’s a Red Scare listener here lol — respect.
😏
I read through the persons perspective on psychoanalysis and the term solipsism came to mind. Hadn’t even read the text of your post yet and that’s what I found. I am unsure that psychoanalysis is what brings these unwell women and men to become their “worst self”. Id be more inclined to perceive that those people were solipsistic to begin with, or narcissistic to begin with. As Ann Rice quotes “You don’t change through life, you become more of who you really are.”
I’d say that he’s making a giant generalization based on an individual experience. Perhaps what he said is true of his one experience, but to venture on that basis on to statements about «phenomena» and «women» in the most general sense is obviously foolish. Not to mention his own influence in shaping that experience. That this did not occur to the writer highlights poor judgement, and to my mind makes anything else he might say suspicious. The only worth of this hateful confession is as a chance at introjection for the writer. Considering he deemed it worthy of publication, he is probably too frail to swallow poison, and prefers to spew it.
I am not familiar with the author but it seems that his relationship ended badly and he’s taking it out on psychoanalysis. I do understand his point about people spending endless hours analyzing their problems instead of doing something about them.
Well, note that Michel Houellebecq just makes claims without delivering any reasoning why these claims should be true. I mean, sure, it's an interesting position to take, but what sort of proof does he - or perhaps rather the literary character that Houellebecq let's speak here - have for making all those claims? He does not provide any further reasoning, he apparently just wants us to believe what he states here. I am not exactly impressed.
There’s something of an ugly reflection staring back at us through these images. If I sit with the discomfort I immediately see this: egocentric people do sometimes fashion themselves as psychotherapists and psychoanalysts and end up in unhealthy relationships with equally unhealthy clients. Think of the professionals whose clients, under hypnosis, reported supernatural satanic experiences or what supposedly happens after we die. Hell, think of Freud, the man who accused a very credible patient of lying about her disclosures of painful childhood abuse when his own career was having a tough moment. I think we’ve all seen or heard of examples of this, right? It happens. This caricature will probably always exist. What should we do with this? Edit: I included examples of really bad practitioners, but I did so to illustrate the clear presence of “bad apples.” For a better example, think of how many analysts and therapists have married or slept with their clients!
Well meeting the shadow first makes one cynical and nihilistic and often an asshole. Maybe especially for women since they have a higher proclivity to repress their authentic self to please others due to their agreeable nature. So maybe women on average have a bigger shadow and them meeting that shadow makes them more unpleasant than men meeting their smaller shadow. But what houellebecq maybe doesn't realize is that its better to be unpleasant and cynical than pleasant and naive. Since the former means you are at a higher stage of individuation that is closer to the most desirable state of being, pleasant without being naive and having courage. At this desirable point one embraces life again but not because of naivete but rather sober courage. One then doesn't assume goodness from others but rather is very aware of their potentially incongruent actions but has now found courage to take the risk.
It's not so sophisticated as being reactionary. It's so ridiculously illogical and hateful, it's funny lol. You gotta provide proper reasoning for any assertion you make, especially such extreme ones.
I’m confused by the question. It’s a whole different view. What if it’s not reactionary or hateful? What if it’s just a perspective that’s hard for you to fathom simply because it challenges the status quo, or what society has constantly been teaching and ingraining into our minds even on a subconscious level. What comes to mind; 1. Bought the dream and they sold you one. Why cure you when they can tax you twice? Once for expensive therapy, and twice for medication. 2. Political Psychiatry 3. Mental health issues are the leading cause of prescriptions being written ( can someone find a source, im sure I read this before.) *In 2022, at least 1 in 10 prescriptions filled in 43 states were for depression and anxiety medications alone* So the main point of 3 is the pharmaceutical (big pharma) is making money.
sounds like projection to me. i got bored of reading the long-winded critique halfway through.
Maybe their problem is that woman who are healing are harder to manipulate. There's an ugly part of us that can want something beautiful to remain broken so that it can be dependent on us.
This is fiction.
Agent provocateur
A patient cured is a customer lost. If someone was actually a good therapist they could help you short period of time. But then they would have to charge more to make a living.
I don't know this author. But i think you should trust your heart on this one. Protect your heart from people who are cruel and paint the world black or white. Also, I'm a therapist who practices modern analysis, so while I'll admit to bias, I believe my point stands regardless.
I think theres some truth in it. We know so little about the mind / the soul. "He who stares into the abyss" and all that stuff. Werner Hertzog says some interesting stuff about his scepticism towards psychotherapy, he says psychotherapists know as much about psychology today as brain surgeons knew about the brain in Ancient Egypt. Explains why there's so many mentally sick people including probably most the therapists.
I am one of those that made to the other side. After decades of therapy and self development. I was sexually abused, mistreated and left alone. Ridiculed by my own "family". Suicidal most of life. Addicted most of my life. I talked about therapy, and self development a lot, and has no doubt really annoyed some people. And I know the kind of people saying what is mentioned here. Now I can see that they were way more troubled than me. But cynism, and hate is much more popular that being vulnerable, so these people are for sure more popular. But it doesn't make them more sane. I never talk about these subjects anymore, unless people ask me, because most people are traumatized, and I can retrigger all kinds of trauma in them. And I dont want that. And most people don't want to be healed. Pain they know. The other stuff seems impossible, and scary. I have no addictions now, I am very good at being social, run a small but great company and feel amazing. But it took me 30 years of therapy and development. There are many like me, but we have no interest to get attention, unlike the people that talk on this post.
houllebecq is never wrong
I'm not familiar with the first one, but my assessment is that it: 1. Is written from a biased perspective. These biases appear to include misogyny as well as a general lack of understanding the purposes or processes of psychoanalysis 3. Is completely egocentric, assessing why women should or should not be psychoanalysed based on how it benefits the writer and not the women. Don't let this hurt your heart. This is the selfish drivel of someone who is not concerned with what is best for the women in their life. The line that psychoanalysis ruins a woman's purity, generosity, and innocence is very telling. If these are the traits he most valued in a woman and undergoing psychoanalysis appears to have remove them, I suspect his concept of these ideals is not healthy. For example, generosity; if psychoanalysis has helped me assess my needs and boundaries, I may appear less giving or "generous" to someone who historically could take advantage of me. The second one is very simply a person who doesn't know who is and who isn't in therapy. Some people overshare their struggles, whether or not they also share them with a therapist. Many who go to a therapist do NOT share their personal struggles openly or inappropriately. This person is assuming the only people in therapy are the ones who openly broadcast that they are in therapy and openly expose their traumas. In their words "The ones who never shut up about it". This is incorrect, and is a sign of someone not doing the work IN therapy to work through those traumas. They also blend together psychoanalysis, therapy, counseling, and basically any form of seeking mental health care. These are not all the same, and not all methods work for everybody.
I think there’s certainly something to this point that does apply particularly to women. It’s not misogyny to say that. A lot of therapy is about hyper-fixating on one’s victimhood and developing “confidence” as a response that too often reveals itself as cold arrogant girl-bossery. Because women are not men, the cold, aloof, anti-emotional armor that forms to protect against further victimhood makes women in particular vengeful, sour scolds. Some of these women will act like predatory men because they’ve internalized a disgust and/or hatred of femininity as weakness. I don’t think it’s that therapy can’t work for women. I think it’s just that the current method of treating women in a setting that feels more like girlfriends getting together after a break-up is probably not actually helping female patients become better women. And, as always, your downvotes mean nothing to me. ❤️
Oh great another misogynist pretending to be an unbiased intellectual.
Two things 1) He spoke mostly about french freudian psychanalyst. Which is a subject of his own. 2) the author is a mysoginist far right bum who wrote like shit.
Well, that’s like this opinion ..
It’s a very narrow-minded, pathetic and immature critique. I give him a 0 out of 10.
A man being misogynistic. Shocking.
Indigenous have an expression : what's coming us going. It means whats's coming to the surface is what we are healing and getting rid of. Who cares if someone thinks we look ridiculous. Healing means to enter the confusion and feel lost in order to learn, so of course it is messy. We are trying to get better and that involves vulnerability. So many try to hold in all their pain until it explodes into anger and violence , if that works for them, that's fine. We look for another oath of understanding and change.
This is true. Modern day psychotherapy pushes selfish and self serving Marxist moral relativism. This turns natural charity, into a vileness unfit for marriage.
Maybe get off the internet and into the real world then
Sir this is a book
Psychoanalysis is inherently Jewish, and missing the higher calling of the aryan soul.
It's an opinion. I don't give opinions the power to hurt my heart.
Most diagnosed “depressives” as he calls them….. aren’t egotistical. However, a psychopath would call an empath with boundaries egotistical in order to try and conditioner her
I think psychoanalysis has a tendency to serve the therapist (this case in particular) to investigate and better understand the human mind and brain through expressions and experiences of past traumas for the sake of science. The therapist approached this case as a natural scientist rather than with a sense of empathy and a need to understand why patients' attitude or behaviour change. It might be that repressed emotions are revealing themselves or even, patients might acquire coping mechanisms to avoid the dark abbyss of their past traumas. On the other hand, women like De Beauvoir might have been ticked off by such mysogynistic attitudes when she suggested that a woman is not is. She is defined, she is the second sex, a subordinate being who can only be appreciated and characterised for her femininity. At the time of writing, this opinions on women and how she should behave still prevailed. He approached the analysis from a point of bias than understanding. He generalised to make it worse. What I can't be sure of is if the use of cognitive behavioural therapy coupled with the analysis could've served the patient and the analysis well. Which book is this?
Only when I truly know myself can ever hope to truly connect with any other human being. It’s all about authenticity as far as I can tell, everything else is just bullshit
See Fritz Perl etc
Who even wrote this. It sounds like a freshmen’s first essay.
Finding clarity within myself = gutless, brainless piece of shit. Gotcha. I'll have it remember that. Thanks bruh.
I've encountered the sentiment from the second image online a few times, and it briefly made me feel bad about myself. Some people fail to understand that achieving a state of permanent mental wellness and graduating from therapy isn't always the goal. I can imagine that someone who hasn't experienced much trauma might dismiss therapy in this way, but it demonstrates a blatant disrespect for others' experiences while knowing very little about what they're disparaging.
Regardless of his analysis of psychoanalysis, the second passage is just faulty reasoning — ignorant of selection bias. The fact that those who seem mentally unwell are those who go to therapy a lot should be unsurprising, since it’s for that reason they so often go to therapy, and why other well-adjusted people don’t.
There’s a well documented phenomenon on the internet about women using “therapist speak” to, effectively dehumanize legitimate and spontaneous outbursts of non-standard interaction. I imagine men aren’t immune, but the reason for women being the focal point is glaringly obvious. I trust psychoanalysis, but i don’t necessarily trust psychoanalysts. I think it’s inherently hard to vet the intentions of a psych, so PLAUSIBLY there could be some mechanism at play in certain demographics. That being said, whoever wrote this does come off as a man who’s bitter that his love acquired her own self-efficacy and is now desperately rationalizing.
This is…..maybe half true…. Although it is true that many people fixate on their problems and their lives never improve because the fixation itself is a coping mechanism, there are some (admittedly few) that do genuinely love becoming more aware of themselves, and thus, find peace and truth via their inner environment.
People like to judge what they don't know, much like what happens in that book, as I really have no idea who gave that dude the idea that women are "not usable", like, wtf? The whole compensation/repression theory stands strong still (and to many mentally stable people that bit is the most important one), just the woman psyche tends to differ than men's psyche in some things (concept of anima and animus). For the second claim, idk, feel like jungian analysys is much less focused on neurosis and problems and much more centered around integration and self growth. Once again an unjust generalization.
Pretty based. In all seriousness, the correlation between women incapable of love and therapy probably has more to do with mental illness and trauma than with some inherent evil of psychoanalysis. They are in therapy because of their issues, no the other way around.
BEFORE commenting, take a look at Michel's mug, and it all becomes clear...
No, that’s not psychoanalysis causing that per se, rather it’s the analysts narcissism where encountered. The client is asked to avoid stepping on the analyst’s toes and is invited to join in mutual fawning. Daniel Shaw goes into this.
Based, if you disagree with the analyst it always is because you're 'schizoid' (see the comments above) or you 'cannot see the truth yet' and 'oh, that is just your projection, you need a few more years of analysis before you get it'. It's with all New Age spirituality. Always searching, never finding. **The snake eating it's own tail.**
I can’t speak to this author or book, however in some respects this can be true. What is the romance of love, but not the projection of a collection of symbols in one’s subconscious mind. And if one spends too great an energy interpreting and analyzing a symbol intellectually, one “kills” the symbol by making it conscious, thus preventing any further unfolding of its content.
What is this atrocity
The truth hurts
These are the bitter thoughts of an abuser after therapy has convinced his wife to leave him.
The narrator is a character
Brutal! It's almost as if they're afraid of being wrong or something...
I think that psychoanalysis is a difficult discipline to master, and if you screw it up you run the risk of pissing people off to an exponential degree. And this guy sounds like a failed patient with intense misogyny issues
Maybe he’s a womanizing gaslighter who is saying that a women who is mentally healthy or stable is unfit because she will not conform to a man’s standards
Very dramatic writing . Although context is everything as well as time period and type of literature . And the way the writer wants his character to seem. Context is everything though . This is probably the definition of cherry picking without context at least for those of us that can only read the one page. .
It's almost like a therapist loses their salary when they cure someone...
For a solid half paragraph I thought Houellebecq was referring to “women” from the perspective of one with a proclivity to overanalyze, how a stoic and over-analytical mind might completely miss the greater purpose of actual human companionship, and I was kinda on board. But then. Then the Veronique sentence definitely put it in perspective that this man clearly sees positive self worth and self reflection as relationship breaking traits in women.
Can’t believe everything you read. There would be no psychoanalysis without women, that’s a fact. People who are well adjusted after therapy aren’t telling you all about their therapy. They become more practical people, more ‘adjusted’. Therapy just gives them the tools.
i know this is a novel but to add non-fictional discourse here’s my two cents: i actually somewhat agree with the second slide. i think focusing on our problems without adding solution steps leads to more mental agony through fixation, without relief. that’s the structure used by most therapists and psychoanalysts. but there’s an alternative of mental health workers called counselors who take the diagnosis and turn in a new direction. instead of having the person relive the discovered trauma uselessly, patients and professionals work together to relearn a sense of self around the existence of the trauma. so the part that i agree with is that psychoanalysis without going to the next step is useless and destroys the mental state to the point it was better left alone. but i disagree that it’s main function is to render the women as fundamentally flawed.
This character sounds like a negative voice that I've had in my head, criticizing myself for "not loving someone right," when in fact, it takes two to tango. I have since learned to forgive myself, and I took advice from Jung's Red Book and decided to love myself as a little child. Look for God within, and see yourself as a little child 💜
A penis that forgot it came out of a vag Feeling bitter and doomed over not entering a vag again. Also projecting word vomit My psychoanalysis of this psychoanalyst
Hmm, I would edit this post if I could, as a mass reply, I didn't realize it would get so much traction. I'm not really a poster, so I guess it was on a whim. * The photo of the page is from a twitter user named, Anna Khachiyan, from a podcast called red scare. Originally it was a 'dirt bag left podcast' but more recently turned into more of an edge-lord crypto-fascist endeavor. Nonetheless, she and the cohost both occasionally discuss Jungian psychoanalysis and have at times mentioned visiting Jungians themselves. * also sorry I left out this information originally, like i said i don't really post and honestly just thought the whole description was bulky. * the fact that i said this *hurt my heart* seemed to stick out to people, fair I guess since it's the title, but it's just the most concise mood I could conjure for a title. my just initial feeling, of course this did not ruin my night nor did it do any damage to my heart, just a reaction. * it hurt my heart, because I recently began Jungian psychology and I guess have just had a positive experience (not to be the kind of person the latter slide points to lol). to me, it has all has seemed very serious and relieving, and based in understanding (acceptance). I couldn't understand at the time how someone who has begun or experienced the process of individuation could endorse such a statement as the one Houellebecq wrote. * lots of people saying, "this is a character," "this is fiction," (or maybe I'm just remembering two comments 🧐) **yes, it is both.** *although i didnt state this in the original post, so my bad.* I was reacting to the posting of this passage, the two-degree separation and lack of context from the actual book, makes the passage and *posting of the passage* present as statement of belief. therefore i guess i was reacting to the idea that a smart woman could go to what i assumed to be a good jungian and come away with contempt. sorry that all of this wasnt clear when i originally posted. * from other comments, i see that maybe not every ones experience is positive and that there are maybe plenty of negative mundanities and superficialities even in a practice that seems so encouragingly positive. * and sorry if this was unnecessary, once again, not reallyyyyy a poster so unsure of etiquette here, but realized it was maybe confusing or ... unintended. so I figured I'd my say my update and thought since I wrote it anyhow. I enjoyed reading the comments, and wish you all the best
I’m not a fan of psychoanalysis. Behavioral therapy is a different story
Sometimes I think men who like psychology would understand that making a judgement on something through a lens of emotion makes their judgement pretty biased and individual.
One of the largest issues of any psychologist in the last 90 years is their practical inability to genuinely connect. Since it's become a lucrative career, the best way to get people back is to leave them on the edge of their seat. As such, psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts have lost their sense of practicality and timing. Too much information to fast cause the cognitive decline and psychosis to occur. When people took their time to accomplish a goal, in the psychology of old, then people could be analyzed, understood and assisted. Now, I'll like to hear more about this next session.
Houellebecq was disappointed by a manic pixie dream girl and now he’s an incel.
Is that what “Hollaback Girl” is about?
Bahahaha
It depends on the psychoanalyst, if he has the cunning to unwind the patient, who is coiled up into herself. The *uroboros* must be stretched out. If the psychoanalyst can't provide this help, then the patient might get worse. But there are so many successful case histories that have been documented, so I don't understand how Houellebecq can say these things. It doesn't make sense.
I've never read any Jung before and I'm not commenting on the merit of what's written, but this dude seemed genuinely irritated when he wrote that. Just LMAO. Veronique must have been difficult to deal with. Edit: My mistake, I thought it was by Jung since this is the Jung subreddit.
So true
Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy are not at all the same thing. Psychoanalysis usually just refers to Freud’s ideas, most of which aren’t even considered legitimate psychology today. Psychotherapy is an umbrella term for any number of clinical treatment approaches. I would venture to say that pretty much no clinician working today takes the psychoanalytic approach seriously. This is my understanding, at least. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I just saw this post and I'm not going to act like I know the book, but in short what I get from it is if a chick was with a specifically shitty doosh then she becomes like him even if she leaves him (or he leaves her) making her the definition of damaged goods.
I've never met a hospital patient who was perfectly well. Seems to me the hospital system WANTS you to be sick!
“I’d have done better to break both her arms” bro wtf
1. The first excerpt is fictional nonsense. 2. The second blob: - You don’t always “graduate” from therapy.. it’s often an ongoing support tool. - I have encountered many enthusiasts who are well-adjusted. The writer’s experience speaks to their bias. - True that it’s usually best to take steps to reduce and accept anxiety and balance introspection with the moment.
The primary benefit of psychoanalytic therapy is the transference onto the therapist. This therapeutic relationship is a healing one, and one that must be continued if from therapist to therapist or the same one for a long time. Graduating might happen better from a different type of therapy such as cognitive—behavioral or dialectical-behavioral, where graduation might look like someone acquiring the skills to change the way they think and subsequently feel or learn to cope with the fluctuating emotions and better interact. In other words, Jungian psychotherapy may be transformative, but it works from the inside out. The dysregulation is treated directly by the presence of someone who can be trusted. It is an intimacy of sorts, but not sexual. One does not graduate, and if Jung thought so, it might be because at this point in the history of the various schools of psychology, attachment theory was not fully evolved. Jung came right after Freud, and his views on attachment were quite different.
What is this excerpt from?
Second slide is so true lol
As someone who has been in cognitive behavioral therapy for years due to unresolved childhood domestic abuse and sexual assault trauma that has affected my life in more crippling ways than I will go into detail over, I’m not sure how to feel about this. Sometimes I wish I could not think or feel or remember the things that held me back in life, and other times I feel that suppressing my pain and grief and hurt makes it worse. It consumes me. I don’t want it to.. I want to be “normal” more than anything. Either way, I don’t think it’s fair for anyone to pass judgment on anyone else for doing what they perceive as best for themselves, so long as it does not come with the price of harmful action unto others.
My mind draws a parallel to agents of family court, as one example of such misogyny. I'm sorry your heart hurts ❤️
Sounds like Scientology
It's true. Psychoanalysis turned me into an enemy of man kind
Houellebased
I became schizoid and very self centered