that the very construct of was anathema. On the other side, were theories that “systems” “self” remained entrenched in the concept of self. These latter theories were wed to the importance of struggling with what it means to be one’s self in a system. One that embodies influences that are forever shaping, challenging, and in pathological circumstances, even threatening the existence of one’s sense of self. In my mind, the more strident systems thinkers went too far in arrogating as sense of self something quaint if not somewhat Especially when compared to the inexorable “delusional”. machinations of the contextual system. Their emphasis undermined for me what it means to be an individual in a system. That is, for one to feel impassioned, to create and pursue one’s dreams while also learning to face the vicissitudes of one’s own existentiality and ontology. Ultimately, to also face the inherent confusions of facing one’s mortality. In short, I could not abandon the sense of what one’s self entailed, no matter how being confounding that became in the face of the power of a system’s perspective. For me, a system without a concept of was simply unacceptable. Still, whatever one’s experience of self self means, it also can never be fully realized unless it finds its place in a especially in system, relationship to the one in which it developed. Hence, without a sense of how it’s embedded self in a system was also simply unacceptable. This led to my contemplation of relevant to three critical themes relational in general, but especially to the model of couple’s psychotherapy as I was psychoanalysis conceiving. These themes take up first, self-actualization in a long term committed relationship, followed by the second theme of the necessity of mutual recognition versus mutual negation (for to be able to occur). Finally, came a third theme regarding something quite self-actualization
“systems” that the very construct of “self” was anathema. On the other side, were theories that remained entrenched in the concept of self. These latter theories were wed to the importance of struggling with what it means to be one’s self in a system. One that embodies influences that are forever shaping, challenging, and in pathological circumstances, even threatening the existence of one’s sense of self. In my mind, the more strident systems thinkers went too far in arrogating sense of self as something quaint if not somewhat “delusional”. Especially when compared to the inexorable machinations of the contextual system. Their emphasis undermined for me what it means to be an individual in a system. That is, for one to feel impassioned, to create and pursue one’s dreams while also learning to face the vicissitudes of one’s own existentiality and ontology. Ultimately, to also face the inherent confusions of facing one’s mortality. In short, I could not abandon the sense of what being one’s self entailed, no matter how confounding that became in the face of the power of a system’s perspective. For me, a system without a concept of self was simply unacceptable. Still, whatever one’s experience of self means, it also can never be fully realized unless it finds its place in a system, especially in relationship to the one in which it developed. Hence, self without a sense of how it’s embedded in a system was also simply unacceptable. This led to my contemplation of three critical themes relevant to relational psychoanalysis in general, but especially to the model of couple’s psychotherapy as I was conceiving. These themes take up first, self-actualization in a long term committed relationship, followed by the second theme of the necessity of mutual recognition versus mutual negation (for self-actualization to be able to occur). Finally, came a third theme regarding something quite
CJ-BK-MADRID-PRESENTATION-2018.docx