If Solms is right, we’re navigating a 7-dimensional space of affect. But we’re not free to move about this space where we like. We have baked in strategies which may have been our best attempt at solutions at the time. The very act of satisfying one affect will bring about distress, or at least threaten to, from another.
Then we choose as a partner someone who promises to resolve our dynamics, but they come along with their own obstacles.
Watching a dog, it keeps its affective dimensions nicely separate.
The Oedipal Complex was the equivalent of what in physics one calls the three problem of the three bodies, a problem for which, as is well known, a complete solution was never found. (Jacques Lacan)
What if all that is creative arises from an attempt to escape these dynamics?
Reminiscent of Atwood and Stolorow on Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein.
Also Imre Hermann.
Perhaps if we were easily satisfiable there would be no struggle. But what makes for a creative form of escape rather than a frozen form or chaotic one?
Marks-Tarlow, T. (2011). Merging and emerging: A nonlinear portrait of intersubjectivity during psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 21, 110–127. doi:10.1080/10481885.2011.545333
Yakov Shapiro “Dynamical Systems Therapy (DST): Theory and Practical Applications.”
Sashin, J. I., & Callahan, J. (1990). A model of affect using dynamical systems. The Annual of Psychoanalysis, 18, 213–231.
Last revised on April 3, 2024 at 11:16:18. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.