在转向哲学之前，我是一名精神分析的心理治疗师，广泛地解释了弗洛伊德的传统。从我对这个领域的沉浸感中，我知道(尽管最近有很多负面的报道)精神分析在临床上是强大的，在哲学上也是丰富的。I’ve written quite a bit about the philosophy of psychoanalysis over the years, so I thought I’d offer some blog postings on the philosophical significance of psychoanalysis for中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播.

I’ll begin with an arresting remark by the British psychoanalyst and pediatrician Donald Woods Winnicott. Winnicott wrote in a review of Carl Jung's memoirMemories, Dreams, and Reflections: “I was sane, and…through analysis and self-analysis I achieved some measure of insanity.”

这种说法对你来说可能听起来很奇怪。精神错乱难道不是一种需要避免的疾病吗?当然，如果我们谈论精神分裂症这样的疾病，这肯定不是一个成就。但这不是温尼科特想要的。要理解他的意思，你必须把他的话放在他作为精神分析学家的工作背景下思考。这马上就出现了一个问题，因为大多数人——我想，这个博客的大多数读者——对精神分析的印象来自于他们在电视和电影中看到的第三手，这些通常与现实相距甚远。所以，为了理解Winnicott，我需要给你们一个关于精神分析过程核心的快照。

The psychoanalytic process revolves around what Freud called the “basic rule” of free association. Here’s how he described it in a 1904 article entitled 'Freud's psycho-analytic procedure':

他(精神分析学家)要求病人在他的谈话中“放开自己”，“就像你在一场毫无关联、毫无章法的谈话中所做的那样”....[H]e坚持他们必须包括他们头脑中出现的任何东西，即使他们认为它不相关、不重要或荒谬;他特别强调他们不能遗漏故事中的任何想法或想法，因为把它们讲出来会让他们感到尴尬或痛苦。

这听起来很有趣。只要躺在沙发上，冷静下来，把你脑子里所有疯狂的想法都说出来，而对方正在静静地恭敬地听你说。只是让你的思想走神，说出它在哪里走神。

Easy, right?

Wrong!

It turns out that following the basic rule isn’t easy at all. In fact, it’s impossible. Try it and you’ll discover that you can’t do it—or at least that you can’t do it for very long. Some people can’t even get started. They follow a structured, thought-out agenda or implore the analyst to ask them questions. Others start off smoothly enough, but soon get mired in ruminations instead of letting thoughts intrude unbidden into their mind. Others can’t help censoring their embarrassing thoughts, or drying up, or find themselves imprisoned in a state of mental paralysis and unable to speak.

弗洛伊德称这些障碍为“抵抗”。不幸的是，“抵抗”一词在心理健康行业经常被滥用。一个“抵抗”的病人是不听话的和反对的——他们不遵守他们的咨询师、治疗师或社会工作者的命令。这与精神分析中的抵抗概念相去甚远。在精神分析的框架中，抵抗并不等同于反对的态度。相反，它是一种阻抗或堵塞，类似于导体对电流的阻力，或生锈的铰链打开的阻力。

一旦阻力出现，精神分析工作的目标就是消解它:不是通过武力，而是通过理解。在这种情况下，分析师的态度可以这样表达:“向我敞开心扉会让你感到害怕。让我们试着理解它是什么。”有大量关于抵抗的文献，研究了它是什么，它的形式，导致它的原因，以及如何最好地应对它。我只想讨论这一切的一个方面——这个方面使Winnicott的引人注目的陈述变得清晰，并强调了精神分析对于理解何为人类意义的一个重要方面。

Psychoanalysis teaches thateveryoneis subject to resistance. There’s no such thing as a resistance-free person, because resistance, and the psychological forces underpinning it, are aspects of the human condition. Looking at life from a psychoanalytic perspective, it becomes clear that what’s celebrated as psychological “normality” is a kind of performance—a systematic pretense that all of us (or almost all of us) silently and unthinkingly embrace. It’s not for nothing that the word “person” is derived from the Latin “persona,” a word for the masks worn by actors.

The problem is that, for most of us, it is difficult or impossible to remove the mask. It is as though it’s become knit with the flesh of our real faces, so that—to a greater or lesser extent—we think that the face that we present to the world is our authentic face.The mask becomes the face.The periphery of our mental life appropriates its center, and we become estranged from ourselves. Resistance is this estrangement in action.

As is the case with any performance, the performing normality is most effective when it’s enacted without any awkward awareness of pretense. So, we do “normality” best when we lose sight of the fact that the mask is not the face. It turns out, ironically, that the mentally healthy person, by ordinary social standards, is the person who is most alienated from their inner life, and the mentally ill person is, by those same standards, one who cannot pull off the performance of normality seamlessly, or cannot pull it off at all.

What does this have to do with free association and the seemingly insane idea of achieving insanity? When a person feely associates, they become acutely aware of how very remote their inner life really is from what’s regarded as normal. They discover the degree to which they are driven by bizarre anxieties, outrageous passions, and unrealistic fantasies. In other words, they discover how “crazy” they are. Resistance happens because exposing this strange inner world to another person transgresses a fundamental social taboo. But even more profoundly, it is difficult because it reveals oneself to oneself, in all of one’s rawness, and shows that the mask is, after all, just a mask. To the extent that free association is unfettered, it reveals that each of us is, by ordinary social standards,insane. We lead double lives: outwardly performing normality while inwardly being carried along by the powerful currents of our decidedly non-normal emotional lives.

Finally, back to Winnicott’s achievement of a measure of insanity. Winnicott believed that this private realm is the source of much of what is richest and most significant in our lives—fueling creativity, play, passion, love, and imagination—and dipping into it, by whatever means, allows one to achieve a measure of benign insanity—for, as Winnicott also remarked, almost twenty years earlier, in an article on 'Primitive emotional development', “we are poor indeed if we are only sane.”