New direction for Psychoanalysis and Memetic Psychology

In one of my article, I talked about that maybe we should consider the possibility that Complex should be treated as an alive object in human psyche that is struggling to survive just like virus, bacteria in human body. Since complex are nothing but entanglement of thoughts/feelings/behavioral patterns are said to ‘having a life of its own’, so how is it not possible for ideas/thoughts to have its own life? That corresponding to the rise of Memetic Psychology, the central tenet of this school of thought is that we can model our mind more like an ecosystem which various autonomous thoughts are struggling for survival. Certainly, it very much departing from ‘energetic’ perspective of human psyche to cognitive model of human psyche, or a mixed view. It appears to me that this suggestion of psychoanalysis would have to face the theoretical challenge with Memetic Psychology in the question of: What is the smallest unit of thoughts/feelings/behavioral? Could thoughts/feelings/behavioral be independent of each other like in the Memetic Psychology? Or thoughts/feelings/behavioral must be treated together as an entangled whole in Psychoanalysis? What experiments we can do to differentiate them? If later is proved as a more accurate picture of human psyche, how should we rewrite Psychoanalysis? Is there a way to combine these two school of thought?

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s

%d 位部落客按了讚: