intersubjectivity involves the cultivation of each partner’s nascent curiosity about their own and their mate’s subjectivity, hence relating. subject-to-subject Without this, marital relations potentially devolve into patterns of and “dominance submission”, Benjamin refers to as complementarity.” however, Mutual-recognition, “split does not aspire to the myth of perpetual attunement.” Indeed, mutual “twinship” “mutual recognition makes no sense seen independently of its dialectical position with negation.” “mutual In this manner, we are intrinsically mired in the fundamental of recognition.” “paradox Embodied in it is, the perpetual dialectical tension between the versus assertion of self the The former entails the self-centered aspect of self-actualization (sometimes recognition of other. being i.e. without focusing one’s upon the other over one’s self care and concern “ruthless”, needs and desires) juxtaposed with the other’s need for one’s recognition (involving being ruthful). Being or readily becomes complicated in the dialectics of “ruthless” “ruthful” versus affiliation. This then leads to the third theme which is, the relationship having a mind of its own. With the sweeping impact of in the 1970s, psychoanalysis underwent a general systems theory massive paradigm shift. There was no longer any place for the linearity of and effect” “cause thinking. The fundamental premise of systems theory is that influences everything”. “everything Hence ideas such as no longer held sway in psychoanalysis which cause-and-effect “drives”, gradually shifted from seeing as so fundamentally causal, to seeing them more akin to “drives” that arise or are inhibited in relational contexts. (Lichtenberg, Lachmann, motivational systems and Fosshage, 1992 and 1996) This cemented our understanding that all human relationships are circularly causal, meaning inextricably mutually influential and mutually regulated.
intersubjectivity involves the cultivation of each partner’s nascent curiosity about their own and their mate’s subjectivity, hence subject-to-subject relating. Without this, marital relations potentially devolve into patterns of “dominance and submission”, Benjamin refers to as “split complementarity.” Mutual-recognition, however, does not aspire to the “twinship” myth of perpetual “mutual attunement.” Indeed, mutual recognition makes no sense seen independently of its dialectical position with “mutual negation.” In this manner, we are intrinsically mired in the fundamental “paradox of recognition.” Embodied in it is, the perpetual dialectical tension between the assertion of self versus the recognition of other. The former entails the self-centered aspect of self-actualization (sometimes being “ruthless”, i.e. without focusing one’s care and concern upon the other over one’s self needs and desires) juxtaposed with the other’s need for one’s recognition (involving being ruthful). Being “ruthless” or “ruthful” readily becomes complicated in the dialectics of versus affiliation. This then leads to the third theme which is, the relationship having a mind of its own. With the sweeping impact of general systems theory in the 1970s, psychoanalysis underwent a massive paradigm shift. There was no longer any place for the linearity of “cause and effect” thinking. The fundamental premise of systems theory is that “everything influences everything”. Hence cause-and-effect ideas such as “drives”, no longer held sway in psychoanalysis which gradually shifted from seeing “drives” as so fundamentally causal, to seeing them more akin to motivational systems that arise or are inhibited in relational contexts. (Lichtenberg, Lachmann, and Fosshage, 1992 and 1996) This cemented our understanding that all human relationships are circularly causal, meaning inextricably mutually influential and mutually regulated.
CJ-BK-MADRID-PRESENTATION-2018.docx