Okt. 31., 2012 | 08:18 am
No:: coda
zinu, ka mana atbilde ar nav īsti atbilde, bet varbūt pametīs kādu ideju:
pirms kāda laika klausījos audiogrāmatu, kur Freids runāja par sympathizing. reku uzgāju grāmatu, kas izskatās pa tēmu, bet neatrodu, kur ielūkoties grāmatā: Nature of Sympathy, M. Scheler
atradu to atkāpi: "The physician who has a female patient with a particular kind of twitching, lodged in the company of other patients in the same room of the hospital, is not surprised when some morning he learns that this peculiar hysterical attack has found imitations. He simply says to himself: The others have seen her and have done likewise: that is psychic infection. Yes, but psychic infection proceeds in somewhat the following manner: As a rule, patients know more about one another than the physician knows about each of them, and they are concerned about each other when the visit of the doctor is over. Some of them have an attack to-day: soon it is known among the rest that a letter from home, a return of lovesickness or the like, is the cause of it. Their sympathy is aroused, and the following syllogism, which does not reach consciousness, is completed in them: "If it is possible to have this kind of an attack from such causes, I too may have this kind of an attack, for I have the same reasons." If this were a cycle capable of becoming conscious, it would perhaps express itself in fear of getting the same attack; but it takes place in another psychic sphere, and, therefore, ends in the realization of the dreaded symptom. Identification is therefore not a simple imitation, but a sympathy based upon the same etiological claim; it expresses an "as though," and refers to some common quality which has remained in the unconscious." (Freud, Dream Psychology)
un vienreiz Hausam bija sērija lidmašīnā, kur, man šķiet, viņš to sauca par vienkārši masu sindromu.. :) bet par to vairs neesmu tik pārliecināta, tas bija sen!
pirms kāda laika klausījos audiogrāmatu, kur Freids runāja par sympathizing. reku uzgāju grāmatu, kas izskatās pa tēmu, bet neatrodu, kur ielūkoties grāmatā: Nature of Sympathy, M. Scheler
atradu to atkāpi: "The physician who has a female patient with a particular kind of twitching, lodged in the company of other patients in the same room of the hospital, is not surprised when some morning he learns that this peculiar hysterical attack has found imitations. He simply says to himself: The others have seen her and have done likewise: that is psychic infection. Yes, but psychic infection proceeds in somewhat the following manner: As a rule, patients know more about one another than the physician knows about each of them, and they are concerned about each other when the visit of the doctor is over. Some of them have an attack to-day: soon it is known among the rest that a letter from home, a return of lovesickness or the like, is the cause of it. Their sympathy is aroused, and the following syllogism, which does not reach consciousness, is completed in them: "If it is possible to have this kind of an attack from such causes, I too may have this kind of an attack, for I have the same reasons." If this were a cycle capable of becoming conscious, it would perhaps express itself in fear of getting the same attack; but it takes place in another psychic sphere, and, therefore, ends in the realization of the dreaded symptom. Identification is therefore not a simple imitation, but a sympathy based upon the same etiological claim; it expresses an "as though," and refers to some common quality which has remained in the unconscious." (Freud, Dream Psychology)
un vienreiz Hausam bija sērija lidmašīnā, kur, man šķiet, viņš to sauca par vienkārši masu sindromu.. :) bet par to vairs neesmu tik pārliecināta, tas bija sen!