Biomedical subjects

S Zepf

Publications and source records attributed to S Zepf.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Incentives for a reconsideration of the debate on metapsychology.

With a view to establishing an area of metapsychological common ground, the author examines the attempts made by G. S. Klein, Gill and Brenner to interpret Freud's conception of metapsychology. Quoting liberally from the correspondence with Fliess and from works composed at all stages of Freud's career, the author shows that the versions put forward by Klein and Gill do not stand up to scrutiny; the economic aspect on which Freud himself insisted and which Brenner upholds is also found wanting. It is argued that, if the Freudian 'co-ordinates' of metapsychology are to have an epistemological function, they must have a solid foundation in the representational world to which the psychoanalytic process affords access. Whereas this is the case with the topographical, dynamic and structural viewpoints, it is not true of the economic aspect. Energies are stated to exist in the representational world only in the form of affects, so that the economic aspect should, in the author's opinion, be abandoned in favour of an affective one. In the context of the endeavour to obtain pleasure and avoid unpleasure adduced by Freud, this viewpoint would concentrate on the relations between affects and the other key elements of the representational world to which the other metapsychological parameters relate.

Freudian Theory↗

PubMed1998

[Affect and mimetic behavior].

The relationship between facial expression and experienced affect presents many problems. The two diametrically opposed positions proposing solutions to this problem are exemplified using the conceptions of Mandler u. Izard. The underlying premises of both conceptions still prevail in various forms. The authors reject the concepts according to which facial expression is merely correlated to the affects (see Mandler 1975) as well as the view that facial expression controls the affects (see Izard 1977). The relationship between affect and facial expression is reexamined, subjecting it to a semiotic, essentially semantic analysis similar to the Ogden and Richards' language and meaning approach. This analysis involves a critical discussion of Scherer's attempt of a purely communicational interpretation using Bühler's organon model. In the author's approach, facial expression is seen not simply as a system of signals, but as a system of representative signs which signify the affects and refer to the emotive meaning of things for the subject. The authors develop the thesis that human beings are not born simply with the ability to speak, but also with the abstract possibility of performing facial expressions. This ability develops by way of coordinating patterns of expressions, which are presumably phylogenetically determined, with affects that take on a socially determined individual form, similar to language acquisition during socialisation. The authors discuss the methodological implications arising for studies investigating the affective meaning of facial expressions.

Affect↗

PubMed1995

[Objectivity and subjectivity of knowledge in nomological social sciences].

In this article the question is discussed in how far the processes of understanding in the nomological social sciences an "objectivication", which is demanded of psychoanalysts, can be used for psychoanalytically gained insights to human behavior. For one it is shown that it is impossible in principle to verify or falsify hypotheses within the nomologically oriented methodological self understanding. Furthermore the logical, empirical scientific process obligated to proving hypotheses is pursued in the perspective of a psychoanalytic social psychology and the thesis is developed that these insights, which are gained in nomological research projects are also always products of neurotic-blind interaction, so that nothing can be said of the value of knowledge gained in these research findings as long as the scientists do not clarify their research practice psychoanalytically.

Aggression↗

PubMed1990

[The limits of psychoanalytic insight].

Psychoanalysis has the intellectual power to decipher the inner structure of subjectivity, thus distinguishing itself from neighbouring human sciences. In doing so psychoanalysis is able to show the damages a society does to its individuals. Present-day psychoanalytic practice and thinking however runs counter to these inherent possibilities. The interaction of unresolvable neurotic phenomena and ideological bias in individual psychoanalysts reflect the increasing subsumption of psychoanalysis under the dominating interests of society--a dependency, which characterizes the actual psychoanalytic practice and theories in our time as basically affirmative.

Humans↗

PubMed1987