在幻觉的伪装下重新审视“真理”:对罗杰·黑斯廷斯和埃斯特尔·谢恩的回应

Helen Grebow
{"title":"在幻觉的伪装下重新审视“真理”:对罗杰·黑斯廷斯和埃斯特尔·谢恩的回应","authors":"Helen Grebow","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2014.947683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their discussions of my article, Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane each offer a compelling and complementary perspective on understanding enactment and the experience of enactment, as I have tried to convey it. In my response I highlight, and comment on, points they each make. In my response to Hastings, I elaborate on his consideration of the “process level of awareness,” and the problem of “conveyance” as well as his thoughts about trauma, dissociation, and enactment. In my response to Shane, I reconsider enactment through the contemporary lens of complexity theory, the perspective from which Shane has written her discussion. In particular, I consider aspects of the writings of the four thinkers whose work Shane cites. I am most appreciative of both Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane, two wonderful thinkers and experienced clinicians, who have thoughtfully and creatively crafted discussions that expand and enrich my article.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2014.947683","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting “Truths” in the Guise of Illusion: Response to Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane\",\"authors\":\"Helen Grebow\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15551024.2014.947683\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In their discussions of my article, Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane each offer a compelling and complementary perspective on understanding enactment and the experience of enactment, as I have tried to convey it. In my response I highlight, and comment on, points they each make. In my response to Hastings, I elaborate on his consideration of the “process level of awareness,” and the problem of “conveyance” as well as his thoughts about trauma, dissociation, and enactment. In my response to Shane, I reconsider enactment through the contemporary lens of complexity theory, the perspective from which Shane has written her discussion. In particular, I consider aspects of the writings of the four thinkers whose work Shane cites. I am most appreciative of both Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane, two wonderful thinkers and experienced clinicians, who have thoughtfully and creatively crafted discussions that expand and enrich my article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2014.947683\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2014.947683\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2014.947683","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在对我的文章的讨论中,罗杰·黑斯廷斯(Roger Hastings)和埃斯特尔·谢恩(Estelle Shane)都提供了一个令人信服的、互补的视角来理解制定和制定的经验,正如我试图传达的那样。在我的回复中,我强调并评论了他们各自的观点。在我对黑斯廷斯的回应中,我详细阐述了他对“意识的过程层次”和“传递”问题的思考,以及他对创伤、分离和制定的思考。在我对Shane的回应中,我通过复杂性理论的当代视角重新考虑了制定,Shane就是从这个角度来写她的讨论的。我特别考虑了Shane引用的四位思想家的著作的各个方面。我非常感谢Roger Hastings和Estelle Shane,两位出色的思想家和经验丰富的临床医生,他们深思熟虑,创造性地精心设计了讨论,扩展和丰富了我的文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Revisiting “Truths” in the Guise of Illusion: Response to Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane
In their discussions of my article, Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane each offer a compelling and complementary perspective on understanding enactment and the experience of enactment, as I have tried to convey it. In my response I highlight, and comment on, points they each make. In my response to Hastings, I elaborate on his consideration of the “process level of awareness,” and the problem of “conveyance” as well as his thoughts about trauma, dissociation, and enactment. In my response to Shane, I reconsider enactment through the contemporary lens of complexity theory, the perspective from which Shane has written her discussion. In particular, I consider aspects of the writings of the four thinkers whose work Shane cites. I am most appreciative of both Roger Hastings and Estelle Shane, two wonderful thinkers and experienced clinicians, who have thoughtfully and creatively crafted discussions that expand and enrich my article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Page EOV Racializing Kohut’s “Guilty Man” and “Tragic Man”: Serious Play in the Service of Inclusiveness The End of Comparative Psychoanalysis? Blurring the Boundaries Between Contemporary Theories From Self-Protection to Relational Protectiveness: The Modification of Defensive Structures The Self as a Process of Transformation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1