He does not see it as a failure to outgrow a normal phase. Instead he argues that an intolerable external reality leads to a fusion of ideal self, ideal object and actual self images with concomitant devaluation & destruction of object images as well as external objects. (2/5)

He helpfully glosses: "I do not need to fear rejection for not living up to my ideal of myself and securing the love of my ideal person, since the ideal person, my ideal self and my actual self are all one and the same." What a great way of thinking about narcissism. (3/5)

he technical formulation supports more detailed exploration. e.g. failure to develop normal super-ego, emptiness due lack of live other images, projection of negative self aspects etc. A bulwark against dependency becomes a prison that allows no contact with the other. (4/5)

Kernberg suggests he has identified the (causal) mechanisms at work. For me, he has just provided a useful framework whose different elements can be explored in relation to individual cases. A great improvement on: "Narcissists are just totally in love with themselves". (5/5)

Kernberg: the individual's relationship with others & with themselves depends on their internalised object relations. Aren't the latter just a way of capturing how they relate (& have related) to others & to themselves. In short, how they relate depends on how they relate.

Kohut became dissatisfied with Freudian orthodoxy & set out a new framework based on a psychology of the self. A brave move. But it raised lots of issues, some of which he seems to have struggled to deal with. That's the danger of killing sacred cows. wittgensteinfreud.blog/2025/05/09/koh…

It is easy to get frustrated with the world & to denounce it as Kafkaesque. But surely there is more to life & to Kafka than this? If you want to explore this line of thought, my readable ebook on Kafka is on promotion for less than a dollar. Might be fun?amazon.com/dp/B014PHZT8Q

Is psychoanalysis a science? Some would say that it obviously is. Others that it obviously isn't. It is a complex issue, but well worth trying to think through. I have had a go - see what you think. wittgensteinfreud.blog/2025/05/22/is-…

Neuroscience is the wrong kind of discipline to refute or validate the claims of psychoanalysis. If you want evidence for their validity, you are better off reading Shakespeare, George Eliot, Thomas Mann or Nietzsche, since they too are interested in what makes us tick as people.

Human relationships are complex. How can we make sense of them & be fair to ourselves and to others? Once, perhaps, things were simpler, but today, like Kafka, we struggle. Where can we find a secure base for judgment in a world of multiple perspectives? wittgensteinfreud.blog/2025/06/10/liv…

1) Been watching some AI experts/neuroscientists over IAI. It's amazing what you can learn. One expert said everyone had experienced consciousness. Well, I don't think I have. But maybe I have just never taken the right drugs. #Consciousness

2) Another said we live in a dream world. In reality, colours, sounds & feelings don't exist. Sounds crazy. Also, AI will be able to perceive more dimensions of reality than we can. I know that we can play amazing maths games, but surely the real world has at most 4 dimensions?

The greatest film ever made vs my favourite film. I always jump to the first claim, forgetting that what is deeply meaningful for me may not mean so much to other people. How easily wanting to share something we find wonderful can become a failure to give people their own space.

Like most parent-offspring relationships, philosophy and psychoanalysis have always had trouble getting on. In fact, these days they often seem to be barely on speaking terms. wittgensteinfreud.blog/2025/06/25/phi…

Psychoanalysis has two parents - science and philosophy. It has always idealised the former and sought to minimise or deny any links with the latter. Not an unusual reaction in a troubled marriage. But it is worth trying to sort out the relationship. wittgensteinfreud.blog/2025/06/25/phi…

People have long pointed out that we contradict ourselves in words, deeds, thoughts and feelings. What was new about psychoanalysis was its commitment to exploring our complexities systematically and its use of a new method to do so.

Why not let sleeping dogs lie? Well, there are two criteria for something being in someone's unconscious. Firstly, they are unaware of it. Secondly, it is causing problems in how they relate to themselves or to other people. In the unconscious, the dogs are never really asleep.

Are we all mad? Sometimes it seems so. Are we all bad? Perhaps to some extent. Are we all immature? Possibly. Is it a mistake to see these concepts as closely related? Psychoanalysis seems to fuse them together, and it is worth trying to understand why. wittgensteinfreud.blog/2025/07/15/mea…