Reply to Commentary by Daniel N. Stern
Reply to Commentary by Daniel N. Stern
复制标题
回复 Daniel N. Stern 的评论
DOI：
10.1080/10481880701302079
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
P. Ringstrom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Ringstrom
我通过充实几点来回应斯特恩在很大程度上肯定的讨论，例如，即兴创作不仅仅是自发的，它是一种合奏工作，在双方的个性中出现了模式。这些模式照亮了关于每个人的无意识的某些东西，从这些无意识中开花出迄今为止无法想象或无法表达的东西。然后强调了几个原则：第一，即兴的时刻出现时，“人物”的时刻提请从一些真实的在自己沿着与他们正在诱导对方成为谁。第二，在即兴创作中培养游戏有助于打破完美分析师的神话，因为它不仅是不可能的，而且是不必要的和不合理的--这是整个关系经典的一个开创性的观点。第三，即兴创作是一种将鲜活的血肉注入大量理论的无菌骨骼上的手段，这些理论现在为当代精神分析的观点提供了信息，如混沌和复杂性理论，沿着动态系统理论。我还注意到，即兴的时刻表现出一种新兴的活力感和伙伴之间加深的联系感。他们的工作获得了一种更大的聚焦感，尽管这不是一种刻意的聚焦，因为他们的关系无意识正在“指导”他们。即兴创作让人感到自由、有趣，同时也肯定和认识到每个人给他们的合作带来了什么。相比之下，当即兴创作失败时，它就变成了消极的第三性或高人一等的态度，这些品质反映了死亡、回避、混乱、游戏的束缚，以及对彼此的误解，这些误解演变成了相互的失败感。在回答斯特恩关于正性创伤的问题时，我肯定有一种现象，即病人根深蒂固的情感信念可以戏剧性地改变。当病人的消极信念系统无法吸收某些积极的东西时，就会发生这种情况，病人必须适应一种新的组织原则，也就是说，一种新的情感信念才能理解它，然而，我承认，现在说这种现象在多大程度上渗透到创伤的生理编码元素中还为时过早。
I respond to Stern's largely affirming discussion by fleshing out a few points, for example, improvisation is more than just being spontaneous, it is ensemble work that plays off and with patterns emergent in the personalities of both parties. These patterns illuminate something about the unconscious of each from which blossom things heretofore unimagined or unarticulated. Several principles are then emphasized: First, improvisational moments arise when the “characters” in the moment draw from something real within themselves along with who they are inducing one another to become. Second, the cultivation of play in improvisation lends itself to putting to rest the myth of the perfectly analyzed analyst as not only impossible but as being both unnecessary and undesirable—a seminal point to the entire relational canon. Third, improvisation is a means for putting live flesh on the sterile bones of a host of theories now informing the contemporary psychoanalytic perspective such as chaos and complexity theory, along with dynamic systems theory. I also note that improvisational moments exhibit an emerging sense of vitality and a deepened sense of connection between the partners. Their work obtains a greater sense of focus, though not a deliberate focus as that their relational unconsciouses are “directing” them. Improvisational work feels liberating, playful, as well as affirming and recognizing what what each is bringing to their coauthorship. By contrast, when the improvisation fails, it devolves into negative thirdness or one-upsmanship, the qualities of which reflect deadness, avoidance, confusion, constriction of play, and a misrecognition of one another that devolves into a mutual sense of defeat. Responding to Stern's question about posi-traums, I affirm there is a phenomenon in which an entrenched emotional conviction of a patient's can be dramatically altered. This happens when something positive occurs that cannot be assimilated within the patient's intransigently negative belief system such that she must accommodate a new organizing principle, that is, a new emotional conviction to make sense of it. I concede, however, that it may be too soon to tell how much such phenomena penetrate the more physiologically encoded elements of trauma.