Howard Shevrin’s interest in neuroscience was first methodological: it provided independent evidence on what goes on unconsciously. The foundation of the mind needs not to be entirely neurophysiological: it is possible to describe the mechanisms in psychological terms. However, we aren’t anywhere near a unified theory of the brain and mind. When one goes into analysis, the theory is no longer simply about ideas, one’s life almost hangs in the balance. There is an enormous disparity between the neuroscientist publishing his findings and the analyst who is treating patients, but not publishing. If neuro-psychoanalysis is only going to rely on the neuroscience part, it’s really not going to achieve its important objective. People into psychoanalysis should be trained in “the basic science of psychoanalysis”, which should not be limited to neuroscience, but should include a really important training in psychology, sociology, etc.
- “I don’t stop; I start again.” The position of the analyst in ‘long term care’By Glenn Strubbe
- Vampires, Viruses and Verbalisation: Bram Stoker’s Dracula as a genealogical window into fin-de-sièc…By Hub Zwart
- Psychoanalysis: a symptomatic problemBy Evi Verbeke
- The Violence of Right: Rereading ‘Why War?’By Jens De Vleminck
Addiction Aggression Applied psychoanalysis Architecture Art Body Case study Child analysis Collecting Death death drive desire ethics Fantasy Freud Gaze Identity Institution Institutional Psychotherapy interpretation Jacques Lacan Jouissance Lacan Language Literature Memory Narcissism Object a Oedipus Outsider Art Psychoanalysis Psychose Psychosis Real Repetition Repression Sade Signifier Subject Sublimation Transference Trauma Unconscious Violence Writing