From an ontological standpoint, both psychoanalytic formulations and psychiatric diagnoses work on an estimate of categorical fluency between cases, to form a framework of workable ingress. It is not for either to claim moral authenticity over the other.
Even Laing would agree.
Even Laing would agree.
To proffer some level of deeper understanding is reasonable for the former, but this does not provide a tautology in moral reasoning, other than reductionism in a more specific form. Neither promotes a fair epistemology, only a translation by which work is done.
From a more superficial and ideological standpoint, I suggest that political conflict between the approaches is one of secondary narcissism, not a significant variation in practical application. One is not the tail of the other, but both the tail of the unicorn.
From a clinical standpoint, to further elucidate this argument, we consider the role of psychotic vs neurotic experiences as non-diagnostic, but forgetting their categorical removal from a prescriptive norm, the further analysis of which creates patterns that form diagnoses.
As such, the psychiatric manual is simply a workable extension of psychological frameworks, where the recognition of trends provides ingress to those areas inaccessible to psychoanalytic work. As such, we should be thankful for each other.
And moreover, we should be thankful for the patients who allow us to make such observations, for without them we would have little to argue about.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
