Where to start on psychoanalysis and the subconscious?

repostin'

The most important technical works:
>The Neuro-Psychoses of Defense (SE III)
>The Interpretation of Dreams, II-III and VI-VII (SE IV-V)
>Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (SE VII)
>Papers on Metapsychology (SE XIV)
>Beyond the Pleasure Principle (SE XVIII)
>The Ego and the Id (SE XIX)
>Symptoms, Inhibitions, and Anxiety (SE XX)

The major case studies:
>Studies on Hysteria [incl. "Anna O"] (SE II, with Breuer)
>Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria ["Dora"] (SE VII)
>Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-Year-Old Boy ["Little Hans"] (SE X)
>Notes Upon a Case of Obsessional Neurosis ["Rat Man"] (SE X)
>Psycho-Analytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia ["Schreber"] (SE XII)
>From the History of an Infantile Neurosis ["Wolf Man"] (SE XVII)

There is no "unconscious": you are getting tricked.

Attached: freud.jpg (375x500, 39.12K)

In recent years two books that heavily reject psychoanalysis were published in France. One was even a massive bestseller (over 100k copies sold) but by some complete MYSTERY none got translated.

Attached: freud psychoanalysis scam books.jpg (688x508, 123.91K)

how can i be tricked if there is no unconscious?

Attached: 1613507563243.jpg (600x616, 190.87K)

Looks like your ability to form logical thoughts is a bit impaired. I didn't say "the unconscious is tricking you". What I said is that "psychoanalysts are tricking you".

I have the same interest. I really want to go into psychology, but the field seems like such a joke; the hard science is as good as any other science but the clinical applications of its findings are subpar or as good as simple therapy alone.
I personally am trying to learn philosophy up to Schopenhauer before reading the big three psychoanalytics (Jung, Freud and Adler). I think that the conception of the Will, some object of the mind, was inflencial to the devoplent of psychology and may have been the foundation. Also, the scientific period in which Freud and Nietzsche lived (I was surprised they were contemporaries) was influenced greatly by the publication of Darwins Origin of Species and I think that understanding the development of this period is essential.
Of course, I am a novice and would like to hear other ideas

Start with Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit

You are right, however you are also retarded for pushing that book, considering Husserl, a Jew himself, was Freud's earliest detractor.

Yup. Doing things 'unconsciously' doesn't mean they are the result of some kind of second shadow brain called the 'un/subconscious'
Because being 'tricked' seems more like a conscious behaviour, there's an element of awareness towards a certain belief, awareness is not a property of the supposed 'unconscious'.
Also the question is flawed because there quite simply is no unconscious, it's sort of like asking "how can I see if there's no aether" - the theory of aether is inaccurate and therefore cannot possibly explain the presence of light. Or to put it another way, if Jack Nicholson said "you're not my mother, how can you tell me what to do!?" (denotically, not causally of course) to his older sister - not knowing she was indeed his biological mother.

It definitely sounds like you understood Lacan.

Attached: 1646215510927.png (591x767, 52.59K)

it's because America already had its "Freud Debunked" wave but it turns out almost everyone who says Freud was debunked have either a) never read him or b) have severely repressed their desire for mommy milkers

Hard sciences have to admit that "induction is impossible" meaning they can't actually say anything with certainty so their discoveries have no social implications on their own, they are only points of data to be interpreted by engineers and doctors and government agencies and academics. Not to say that these formula, and the basic scientific method are not useful, but to be truly refutable also means performing a practice which is entirely negative--that is, its positive content exists purely in light of its ultimate negation.

Freud was a neurologist treating people who had weird symptoms that had no clear pathology. The Psychoanalytic method was developed by Freud after trying, and failing, to create an entirely physical theory of the mind. In some sense, psychoanalysis still believes that the operations of the psyche can be understood within an entirely physical context, but since we don't have methods capable of doing so, it's a working therapeutic model; one that seems to have some clinical applicability, and has spawned essentially all modern psychological practice.

I would suggest you read some Freud before making any judgements. He is a good writer, and therefore very seductive, but he never once makes any claims which he himself had no doubts thereof.

don't

OP trust me and start with Man and His Symbols. It's far more grounded and less coke addled than Freud's shit, plus, it draws on the lifetime of psychoanalytical experience Jung had.

Gravity's Rainbow

Attached: OIP (47).jpg (474x632, 22.07K)

While the field is filled with pseuds fanatical about the 'scientific' basis of their practice, there are also more humble and reasonable individuals who accept that psychology is better understood as applied philosophy rather than scientific, medical interventions.

Starting with philosophy before moving on to psychoanalysis is what I did, and I am happy I did. Maybe you'd enjoy this lecture series attempting just that:

youtube.com/watch?v=54l8_ewcOlY

Though it's more philosophy/religion/cognitive science, rather than psychoanalysis. Would still recommend.

As for Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology is a good start.

Attached: 1471478407181.png (1080x1920, 1.2M)

Isaiah 41:10 (NIV)

"So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."

What can be the value of an unrepresented representation?
There is no unconscious, only things "in the background/periphery", or things with variable degrees of clarity or obsurity, in your consciousness.
What people often mistakes for a divide between consciousness and unconsciousness is that many of the objects of our mental life can only brought forward in a reflexive moment. And many people also make the mistake to conceive of emotions as purely mental, when they all have a clearly physiological component (by principle. even, as emotions are sources of "motion").
So say you are acting jealous without realizing it. You have not yet had a reflexive moment in which you brought forward to your attention the peculiar qualities of your current attitude, but they are there and they are colouring all of your perceptions and dictating different actions than what you would normally do. At some point something triggers a reflexive moment, you take pause and turn your perception over to yourself, as an object to your consciousness. You realize that there is a specific logic, that of jealousy, which is regulating your current actions. You also realize, if you didn't earlier, what exactly is the object of that emotion. Most of the time, this reflexive action also modifies the qualities of the emotion itself. Shame is often renewed and intensified, jealousy is usually subdued, anger can go either ways.
These things were all "in consciousness" before they were brought to your immediate attention.
The only unconscious at work here was the trigger warning that stopped your ongoing activities and put you in a state where you could accomplish a reflexive act. This is a purely "cognitive" mechanism explained by PPM tho. Multiple action schemes are run simultaneously on the purely "informational" level. If an action scheme triggers too many warning triggers, it is discarded. If all action schemes are discarded, you will naturally pause, you will feel paralyzed by the events. In this pause lays the chance to initiate this reflexive moment.

psychiatry and neurology is what you're looking for but that's /sci/. the entire problem with the theory of an "unconscious," it's fundamentally immeasurable and the brain is the least understood organ in the body. the flip side is that psychotherapy can help people rationalize and correct their behavior without any chemical or physical treatment whatsoever. the organism protects itself form being harmed and all psychoanalysis does is try to identify what trauma one is avoiding when one acts in a way that is illogical or self-harming.

Autism is a gift

>Yup. Doing things 'unconsciously' doesn't mean they are the result of some kind of second shadow brain called the 'un/subconscious'
All of the motivations you have which are not conscious are unconscious. "The unconscious" is the totality of unconscious motivations. It's not some part of your brain, it is a subjective category. If you think "subjective" means "not real" you are not going to get it.

>All of the motivations you have which are not conscious are unconscious.
A motivation is an abstract construct applied to human behaviour, it is not an object within any specific strata of consciousness, unless once you conceive of it as an object (as I am doing here). The motivation to breed you have is a construct you or I create in order to explain different manifestations of you being a horny boy.

>A motivation is an abstract construct applied to human behaviour, it is not an object within any specific strata of consciousness, unless once you conceive of it as an object (as I am doing here). The motivation to breed you have is a construct you or I create in order to explain different manifestations of you being a horny boy.
Okay so you're a materialist; filtered.

Kek, I'm a transcendantal idealist as per Husserl's definition, get rekt you cunt.

Attached: 1474783.jpg (288x475, 85.9K)

You are still filtered I don't care what you call yourself

i appreciate this comment. I didn't leave the one youre replying to but i am in the process of the exact same thing. Reading schop, and planning to move on to psychology. I like thinking of it as applied philosophy, that is well put.

save your eyes/time and skip the oldfags. you've heard enough of their theories your entire life from plebs who took psych 101 and parrot it back as though it was their own original thought. nearly every modern psychoanalyst will bounce off of the deeper freudian topics and usually directly quote the source material.
with that in mind, kohut, andre green, and spotnitz are the places to begin to get a well-rounded basis to branch out from.
if you want to go down the jungian path, i suggest edwin edinger and marie-louise von franz

I guessed the spoiler text by pure instinct, we must be unconsciously connected somehow.

What's wrong with Husserl?

Literally nothing, he's the single greatest philosopher we've had in the last 150 years. But he was Jewish, and he opposed Freud while Freud was still taking his classes, so saying Freud is just pushing a Jewish agenda is clearly false.

Ok, let's try again.
A motivation is something you encounter in the course of your natural attitude, it is an object which we all use in order to make rough sense of each other's actions. In the same way that we all have a Theory of Consciousness, in the way cognitive science hears it, we have a Theory of Psychology, of which "motivation" is the main representation.
As representations motivations can be said to be part of consciousness. They cannot have value outside of representation however, and thus cannot have value outside of consciousness.
Your quip about materialism reveals how memetic your understanding of the problem is. A very large number of our mental entities are "constructs", or perhaps more accurately syntheses, and it is absolutely not incompatible with idealism to believe that our physical makeup participates in our handling of these entities.
Additionally, motivations as tools for rule making are only occasionally valid, and not by essence. Being accidental is a feature of the material realm, while ideal entities are related by pure necessity.
A specific psychological consciousness is a field populated by entities synthesized from both material and ideal "presentations". This is why phenomenology teaches that, if you want to reach the sphere of pure ideas and further to the transcendental realm you have affect a reduction on your own consciousness, and you have to train hard at it otherwise you'll fall back into psychologism, you can't just start doing introspective psychology as a pure logic and have it produce anything else than nonsense.

Attached: kek.png (640x960, 829.84K)

>The unconscious" is the totality of unconscious motivations.
It's an arbitrary category, based on a assumption that there is a clear delineation between conscious and unconscious behaviour, which is not so. I think even Freud said there is a grey area between the too.
> If you think "subjective" means "not real" you are not going to get it.
I never said that: I said a secondary shadow brain is not real - you're saying it is.
I don't think I used the word subjective: you're clearly inferring things based on your own agenda and as such you don't get it, but I get it, I get how pointless and vacuous it is as a concept. To ascribe something to the "unconscious" is like saying "it came from 'over there'" where is "there" exactly? It doesn't help describe the source and nature of motivations. Why? Because as you said, it's a totality, there's a variety of discrete mental agents (and physiological processes - gustatory, hormonal, gestural etc. etc.) which are responsible for all sorts of different and often competing behaviors, thoughts, feelings, sensations.

Waste of time. The subconscious is not understanble. Anyone who say otherwise is a liar.

take some lsd

why are people taking these hacks seriously in [current year]? i don't get it

>It's an arbitrary category, based on a assumption that there is a clear delineation between conscious and unconscious behaviour, which is not so. I think even Freud said there is a grey area between the too.
Anybody who doesn't believe in unconscious behavior lacks self-awareness. To state that there is no unconscious is to state that you are fully aware of the entire depth of your emotional state at all times and if you think that you are wrong.
>A motivation is something you encounter in the course of your natural attitude, it is an object which we all use in order to make rough sense of each other's actions. In the same way that we all have a Theory of Consciousness, in the way cognitive science hears it, we have a Theory of Psychology, of which "motivation" is the main representation.
Motivation is something you experience in yourself you fucking dumbass. You don't "make sense of yourself" by constructing an theory of your own behavior which you then call a motivation, you feel emotions and that are self-evidently related to an object of your immediate attention and that phenomena is called motivation. If motivations were mental constructs people wouldn't become healthier by understanding them.
>As representations motivations can be said to be part of consciousness. They cannot have value outside of representation however, and thus cannot have value outside of consciousness.
Value doesn't exist outside of consciousness so I don't understand your point.
>Your quip about materialism reveals how memetic your understanding of the problem is. A very large number of our mental entities are "constructs", or perhaps more accurately syntheses, and it is absolutely not incompatible with idealism to believe that our physical makeup participates in our handling of these entities.
I know that. You're implying that emotions are not real because people can invent false interpretations of themselves which is retarded.
>Additionally, motivations as tools for rule making are only occasionally valid, and not by essence. Being accidental is a feature of the material realm, while ideal entities are related by pure necessity.
>A specific psychological consciousness is a field populated by entities synthesized from both material and ideal "presentations". This is why phenomenology teaches that, if you want to reach the sphere of pure ideas and further to the transcendental realm you have affect a reduction on your own consciousness, and you have to train hard at it otherwise you'll fall back into psychologism, you can't just start doing introspective psychology as a pure logic and have it produce anything else than nonsense.
How do you manage to live while trying to convince yourself you don't have motivations?

Because the promise that there is already some kind of wisdom or understanding within you and it's as simple as listening to your unconscious is of course an appealing premise which promises dividends.
Also the dominate narrative right now is that "society and rules bad; instincts and your feelings good" which is such a false-dichotomy it makes my brain hurt.

>Anybody who doesn't believe in unconscious behavior lacks self-awareness
I said that Freud agrees that you can't cleanly delineate conscious and unconscious behaviour and even so what exists beyond the real of conscious behaviour doesn't come from a secondary shadow brain but from a plethora of different sources, but you obviously didn't read that because you're inventing arguments I didn't say you fucking argumentative curmudgeon and hopefully this insult inserted mid-sentence wakes you up, thus making the "unconscious" as a word a stupid and vacuous term that doesn't refer to any single thing in particular.

>so what exists beyond the real of conscious behaviour doesn't come from a secondary shadow brain but from a plethora of different sources,
I agree with that
>but you obviously didn't read that because you're inventing arguments I didn't say you fucking argumentative curmudgeon and hopefully this insult inserted mid-sentence wakes you up, thus making the "unconscious" as a word a stupid and vacuous term that doesn't refer to any single thing in particular.
You said it was an arbitrary category because the distinction between conscious and unconscious can be ambiguous near the threshold which is wrong. There are things which are unconscious to yourself and that is not arbitrary. Don't be mad.

>I agree with that
Then why the fuck are you defending this stupid word "the unconscious" or "sub-conscious" of you agree that it's not a single thing but an arbitrary grouping of different sources of behaviour?
What possible use does this term have other than saying "it came from somewhere over there" without specifying if "there" is up, down, left, or right nor how far away.
>You said it was an arbitrary category because the distinction between conscious and unconscious can be ambiguous
No I said the unconscious is a arbitrary category because there are hundreds of mental agents and physiological processes which result in unconscious behaviors, some of which are competing causes and behaviors. But we can't even clearly delineate which behaviors and 'conscious' or not.
I'm going to repeat myself because clearly you don't pay attention (or you're a fucking bot): The term "unconscious" and sub-conscious is a useless word because there is a plethora of different sources for what we can only tenuously call unconscious behaviors. Have you got that? Probably not, so let me say the same thing again: there is no single entity which is the cause of all behaviors which we can't definitively label as being the product of the most aware part of our mind, and if there is no single entity then you would be doing a disservice by inventing a fictional single name that wrongly implies they are all one.

Motivations are not an ideal category is what I meant. You have representations, (or emotions & judgements, which are all founded on representations) those representations have values as representations. You do not have unconscious representations because that is specifically a contradiction in terms, because unrepresented representations is something which has no meaning and no value.
>I know that. You're implying that emotions are not real because people can invent false interpretations of themselves which is retarded.
The fuck are you on about? And what the fuck is this about 'real'? Are you a realist or an idealist? Jesus fuck are you confused, mate.

Okay I finally figured out how to explain it that even you can understand it:
If I say
>A dog has four legs and a tail, my cat has four legs and a tail, therefore my cat is a dog
I'd be obviously wrong. A dog and a cat belong to different categories despite possessing similar traits.
Now what you're effectively saying is:
>This radio came form China which is overseas, this t-shirt came from Argentina which is overseas, therefore this t-shirt came form China
which is the same as
>I had this unconscious desire to think about the word "seagull", and I had this unconscious desire to hiccup, therefore they came form the same place
Both are just as wrong as saying a cat is a dog. A cat is not a dog because it shares traits, not all things that come from overseas come from China, not all unconscious behaviors come form the same place which means there is no single entity we can call the 'unconscious' or 'subconscious'.

>Then why the fuck are you defending this stupid word "the unconscious" or "sub-conscious" of you agree that it's not a single thing but an arbitrary grouping of different sources of behaviour?
That which is unconscious belongs to the category "unconscious". Jung mentioned something like "twilight consciousness" when something is barely in your field of attention but you're not fixated on it to become fully aware of it. Regardless there is nothing arbitrary about the fact that you do things for reasons you do not always completely understand. If you have difficulty accepting that you are naïve and immature.
>What possible use does this term have other than saying "it came from somewhere over there" without specifying if "there" is up, down, left, or right nor how far away.
That is the point of Jungian archetypes. You don't even have to get specific with archetypes to know that you sometimes do things for reasons that are not conscious until later reflection but you honestly sound like someone who doesn't do that.
>No I said the unconscious is a arbitrary category because there are hundreds of mental agents and physiological processes which result in unconscious behaviors, some of which are competing causes and behaviors.
Do you even question yourself? Yes, you are complicated, but that doesn't stop people from becoming self aware. Have you even tried reading Jung?
>But we can't even clearly delineate which behaviors and 'conscious' or not.
There are some things that can be fuzzy near the threshold of awareness but no there are absolutely things which are entirely unconscious to you which can be made conscious through introspection or therapy. Just because you can't draw an absolutely precise line does not mean there aren't things which you don't know but could.
>I'm going to repeat myself because clearly you don't pay attention (or you're a fucking bot): The term "unconscious" and sub-conscious is a useless word because there is a plethora of different sources for what we can only tenuously call unconscious behaviors.
You seem intimidated by these ideas. People have success with them, its actually not that hard unless you're an npc.
>Have you got that? Probably not, so let me say the same thing again: there is no single entity which is the cause of all behaviors which we can't definitively label as being the product of the most aware part of our mind, and if there is no single entity then you would be doing a disservice by inventing a fictional single name that wrongly implies they are all one.
Nobody fucking said it was a single entity, dumbfuck.

>Motivations are not an ideal category is what I meant. You have representations, (or emotions & judgements, which are all founded on representations) those representations have values as representations. You do not have unconscious representations because that is specifically a contradiction in terms, because unrepresented representations is something which has no meaning and no value.
You can't dismiss the existence of the unconscious with a semantic issue that appeals to your own philosophy. The unconscious personality is only a hypothetical idea to people who have never experienced any form of self-revelation.
>The fuck are you on about? And what the fuck is this about 'real'? Are you a realist or an idealist? Jesus fuck are you confused, mate.
I'm a Christian.
>A dog has four legs and a tail, my cat has four legs and a tail, therefore my cat is a dog
>I'd be obviously wrong. A dog and a cat belong to different categories despite possessing similar traits.
Sure
>Now what you're effectively saying is:
>>This radio came form China which is overseas, this t-shirt came from Argentina which is overseas, therefore this t-shirt came form China
No, its
>This radio came form China which is overseas, this t-shirt came from Argentina which is overseas, therefore this radio and t-shirt both came form overseas
>which is the same as
>>I had this unconscious desire to think about the word "seagull", and I had this unconscious desire to hiccup, therefore they came form the same place
They both came from an unconscious source, yes. That does not even remotely imply that both things came from the same unconscious source or that the unconscious designates some singular psychic organ. I told you you were filtered.
>Both are just as wrong as saying a cat is a dog. A cat is not a dog because it shares traits, not all things that come from overseas come from China, not all unconscious behaviors come form the same place which means there is no single entity we can call the 'unconscious' or 'subconscious'.
Your analogy failed, and I already said that the unconscious is not a singular entity.

>semantic
That you reduce this to semantics shows how little understanding of the whole issue you have.
>I'm a Christian.
You're a fucking meme, that's what you are.

>That you reduce this to semantics shows how little understanding of the whole issue you have.
I've read the Critique of Pure reason, I'm not stupid or ignorant. Your position is self-evidently wrong.

>I've read the Critique of Pure reason
>I've read a book which has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever.
Try again faggot.

Attached: Passive Synthesis.jpg (333x500, 17.14K)

Holy fuck I don't care. The unconscious exists independent of your philosophy. I don't need to hear your theory of what is to understand that.

I highly recommend 'The Essentials of Psycho-Analysis'. It's an edited collection of Freud's work assembled by his daughter Anna Freud, who was an influential analyst in her own right. It's set out in a semi-chronological order, so shows the development of his thought accompanied by helpful introductions written by Anna.

Attached: The Essentials of Psycho-Analysis.jpg (326x499, 20.27K)

The irrational of the Platonists has an interesting relationship with the personal unconscious of modern psychology: if all in the soul were rationally held, what would be sought, what would stimulate thought? If the intellect were in a state that made the inspection of the irrational to seem far less beneficial than disregarding the irrational, is there less value in this condition than there is in an open interplay of the irrational and the rational. Civilizing institutions, in the future, if the technology becomes available, possibly would be interested in creating something that diminishes the influence of the irrational in the soul. It is possible that these institutions would think that it would be to their benefit if people were content with the ordering of society that the institutions have created and if the people were content with their existence and role within this order. A near equivalent to this situation can be found in the effects of anti-depressants. People can achieve a feeling of contentment. People are even given some sort of unnatural energy through these pills, it mimics the energy created by desire but it does not have a natural object. I have felt it. There is not a dissonance at its root, as it’s cause. There is not a solution that one is seeking. It is not life. It is not an energy produced as an effect of the effort to harmonize the rational and the irrational. Soul, and it’s immortality, exists as a harmony that is created by the interplay of the limiting and the delimiting forces in the soul. If the soul is content to exist with the limit alone, is there still soul? Soul, as the life principle, has its virtue in the harmonization of the rational and the irrational, this is that which is the meaning of life. If the civilizing powers accomplish their goal, it is possible that the individual loses access to the means of accomplishing the soul’s purpose. What is for the people? What do the people really support? Have an abundance of jokes sprung up making fun of artists or lawyers? Has the state ever been transparent about their intentions with regard to decisions that impact the people? If it seems as though the essence of the idea of the state is unable to be harmonized with the best interest of human individuals, what can be done? Ignorance and the position held by someone that is ignorant while thinking oneself is not ignorant are two of the worst things for the soul. By making a person ignorant of the irrational, both of these conditions are produced in the soul. If a person has a firm belief in some set of opinions, the influence of the irrational in the soul is diminished.

>there is no single entity we can call the 'unconscious' or 'subconscious'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-disorder