The Paradoxical Place of Enactment in Psychoanalysis: Introduction

Ringstrom's “comparison of relational psychoanalysis and intersubjective systems theory” exhibits a category mistake that renders the core of his argument logically incoherent.     

“Living Memory”: Discussion of Avishai Margalit's “Nostalgia”

Avishai Margalit raises questions about how memory can be a moral and an ethical concern, and in this commentary on “Nostalgia,” Aron expands on these themes and examines the place of memory in psychoanalysis and in Judaism. The study of memory and of mind are inseparable. At its best, psychoanalysis does not contrast thoughts and actions, inner and outer, memory and motor action, intrapsychic mental life and interpersonal external behavior as simple dichotomous terms but rather views these as mutually defining transformations, different views of a single complex reality. Conceived in this way, memory is not a static internal picture, but rather is continually constructed, embedded in our interpersonal context. It is living memory.     

The Ego and the Yid,Revisited: Commentary on Daniel Gaztambide’s “A Preferential Option for the Repressed: Psychoanalysis Through the Eyes of Liberation Theology”

In this commentary on Daniel Gaztambide’s “A Preferential Option for the Repressed: Psychoanalysis Through the Eyes of Liberation Theology” we discuss the Ego and the Y(id) to emphasize the otherness of the unconscious. In the idiom of racial anti-Semitism, the Y(id) was the personification of the feminine, the infantile, the irrational, the perverse, the primitive, and of “Blackness.” Gaztambide rightly refers to psychoanalysis’s marginal and progressive origins and to the role of Freud’s own racial identity as a Jew in producing that marginality. However, we caution against Gaztambide’s metaphorical equation of psychoanalysis and prophecy, and contend that psychoanalysis is at its best when it occupies a position of thirdness, critiquing both from within and without.     

Noumenalism and Einstein's argument for the existence of God

Einstein argued in his latter years that the intelligibility of the world was in the nature of a miracle, and that in no way could one have expected a priori such a high degree of order; this is why he rejected the atheist, positivist standpoint, and believed in a Spinozist God. Einstein's argument, however, is essentially a form of the ‘argument from design’ for a personal God based on the existence of beautiful, mathematically simple laws of nature; that physical order is a unique, improbable alternative compared to the infinite number of chaotic universes that might have existed. Einstein, in his early manhood, was a Humean, but in later years, as he moved toward Spinoza, from phenomenalism to noumenalism, he clearly rejected Hume's restriction of probable inferences to observed sequences. Darwin's arguments against biological design did not apply to Einstein's argument, because the laws of physics are not the outcome of any cumulative struggle for existence and natural selection. Perhaps the beautiful simplicity of basic physical laws helps account for the fact that relatively more physicists than biologists or psychologists hold to a theistic standpoint. Einstein's finite universe would have seriously weakened the argument that life, though infinitely improbable, would have been realized in an infinite world. But in any case, Einstein would have regarded ‘emergence’ theories of life as irrational. In accordance with the principle of identity of Emile Meyerson, the epistemologist whom he most respected, it would have followed that the occurrence of consciousness and intelligence was grounded in a God with those attributes, and that theism was consequently the basis for scientific knowledge.     

“Going the Extra Mile”: Disclosure,Accommodation, and Stigma Management among Working Women with Disabilities

ABSTRACT

Although research has quantitatively evaluated the impacts of stigma upon working women with disabilities (WWD), nuanced, qualitative accounts voiced by these women are rare. To address this literature gap, we conducted seven focus groups with 42 WWD. We asked: “What are women’s experiences of disability disclosure and accommodation in the workplace?” Findings reveal that WWD face intentional and unintentional structural discrimination and must weigh the pros and cons of disclosure and navigate devaluation threats in pursuing workplace accommodations. “Going the extra mile” emerged as a stigma management technique which was prevalent among women of higher social capital.     

The Straight Path to Healing: Using Motivational Interviewing to Address Spiritual Bypass

Spiritual bypass is the avoidance of underlying emotional issues by focusing solely on spiritual beliefs, practices, and experiences. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client‐centered, compassionate approach to effectively addressing resistance among those who present with spiritual bypass. In this article, the authors provide background information on spiritual bypass and a rationale for adopting an MI approach to working with these clients. A case presentation illustrates 1 example of using MI with spiritual bypass.     

The Doomsday Argument and the Simulation Argument

The Doomsday Argument and the Simulation Argument share certain structural features, and hence are often discussed together (Bostrom 2003, Are you living in a computer simulation, Philosophical Quarterly, 53:243–255; Aranyosi 2004, The Doomsday Simulation Argument. Or why isn’t the end nigh, and you’re not living in a simulation, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/190/; Richmond 2008, Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and simulated worlds, Ratio, 21:201–217; Bostrom and Kulczycki 2011 A patch for the Simulation Argument, Analysis, 71:54–61). Both are cases where reflecting on one’s location among a set of possibilities yields a counter-intuitive conclusion—in the first case that the end of humankind is closer than you initially thought, and in the second case that it is more likely than you initially thought that you are living in a computer simulation. Indeed, the two arguments do have some structural similarities. But there are also significant disanalogies between the two arguments, and I argue that these disanalogies mean that the Simulation Argument succeeds and the Doomsday Argument fails.