Chapters & Articles Get by the chapter or add to your own ebook

Medium 9781855756786

I. 1895 Why History?

Meltzer, Donald Harris Meltzer Trust ePub

The recommendation that people who are interested in learning to practise psycho-analytic therapy should apply themselves diligently to the study of Freud seems at first glance to scent of the cult of the personality, to ring of the gospel, and to suggest that nothing else is worthy of study. While it is certain that the recommendation has been used in all these ways, to the detriment of students and psycho-analysis alike, there is another rationale for the advice. There is a cogent justification which has to do with the essential nature of science: namely that it is truly rational in its history. This is formed around a thread of logical necessity. To borrow an image from Freud’s early writing, in the history of psycho-analysis revelations or discoveries - whichever they be - adhere to a chain of logically necessary propositions as garlands of flowers wind about a wire.

It may be objected that this does not justify its discoveries being taught as the personal history of a particular worker, even if he can reasonably be called ‘the father of psychoanalysis’, or the greatest figure in its development, or the foremost authority, etc. It will be said, as it has been said, that Lavoisier was the father of chemistry, but we do not teach chemistry by starting with Lavoisier’s life, not even his laboratory life, to say nothing of his intimate personal life. It is true that chemistry’s history is not the history of people; its logical necessity lies in the relation of particles to one another under varying conditions. However, when you look at the curriculum for the training of chemistry scientists you will find that it adheres absolutely, of necessity, to a sequence which corresponds to the historical development of the science.

See All Chapters
Medium 9781847770998

After-Dead

John Gallas Carcanet Press Ltd. PDF
Medium 9781855752856

Suggestions from the Unconscious: Freud, Hypnosis, and the Mind-Body Problem

Karnac Books ePub

Fulvio Marone

The Freudian approach seems to depend on ‘the progress of neurological, psychological and pathological knowledge’ (Bercherie 1983: 242). Hereby, medical knowledge is at once the transcendental limit of psychoanalysis, and also the condition of its possibility. Indeed, Freud arrived at the threshold of the psychical unconscious by the rigour of his neurological reasoning.

I aim to illustrate this thesis by drawing on the debate concerning hypnosis, which animated medical circles—especially in France—on the eve of the twentieth century. The elements of this debate, as well as Freud’s position within it, I have derived from a series of articles written by Freud in and around 1890 (Freud 1888-89,1889,1890,1891,1892-93).

According to Forel’s detailed examination of hypnotism—Der Hypnotismus, seine Bedeutung und seine Handhabung—as reviewed in Freud 1889, by the end of the 1880s there were three principal explanations of the mysterious phenomena of hypnosis. These were:

1) Anton Mesmer’s theory of ‘animal magnetism’. Mesmer worked in Paris during the second half of the eighteenth century, and borrowed the term ‘magnetism’ from the field of progressive physics in order to furnish a rational justification for phenomena that he was able to induce in subjects by force of will. He conjectured that hypnotic phenomena were the result of a subtle fluid which permeated the entire universe. Some individuals (so-called ‘magnetiseurs’) were endowed with a higher concentration of this fluid, and thus were able to channel and transport it to subjects with a lower concentration, who were receptive and reactive to its influence. However, ‘mesmerism’ was soon rejected by the nineteenth century and its prevailing Zeitgeist of scientific rationalism.

See All Chapters
Medium 9781567263664

Chapter 13: ATOM for Small Projects

Hillson, David Berrett-Koehler Publishers ePub

Everyone involved with projects agrees that they are risky endeavors subject to a wide range of sources of uncertainty. If all projects are risky, it follows that all projects need risk management, at least to some degree. However, it is also abundantly clear that not all projects are the same, either in scope or risk exposure. The risk level is vastly different for a project to move an office and for a project to launch a space shuttle. So although all projects need to address risk management somehow, the level of treatment can and should vary.

Although risk management can be undertaken at a variety of levels, the standard risk process still applies to every project, because there is always a need to clarify scope and objectives (Initiation), find the risks that could affect the project (Identification), prioritize those risks for further attention (Assessment), decide how to deal with them (Response Planning), take appropriate action (Implementation), communicate results (Reporting), keep risk management up-to-date (Reviews), as well as identify lessons to be learned at the end of the project (Post-Project Review). Therefore, the standard ATOM risk process as described in earlier chapters can be applied to every project. However, the fact that different projects face different risk challenges is reflected in the scalable nature of the ATOM process.

See All Chapters
Medium 9781576753903

Photo Credits

Cameron, Kim Berrett-Koehler Publishers PDF

See All Chapters