Hello and thank you for joining us. Today I have
Mihaela. She is a student at the Freudian School
of Quebec, and she is a clinician who practices
psychoanalytically. Mihaela, thanks for joining
us today. I think it's funny to hear you introduce
me as a student, but I guess we are all students
of psychoanalysis to one degree or another, or
students of our own unconscious, if you will.
Oh, yes. Thanks for having me. I'm happy to be
here. Good. Yeah, I found you because so I was
talking with Dr. Donald Carvath and we were talking
about kind of Freud and Christianity and ideas
surrounding that. And he mentioned something
along the lines of Freud had contempt for Christianity
and Freud mocked the Christian love command.
And so I, that in some ways it wouldn't surprise
me. In some ways I was like, I don't know. I
can't, I can't recall for certain. So I kind
of started looking into some of those writings,
but I wanted to get some help. And so I found
you and so I emailed you, sent you some questions.
And so here we are. So. And how did you find
me exactly? Was a I think I googled, you know
Freudian psychoanalysts or Freudian school of
psychoanalysis or something and then I Found
a link to a blog that you wrote I believed and
you wrote a blog on love and hate. I think it
was So I started thinking this is this is my
person I see, yes. That was my practical psychoanalysis
blog that I used to write for Psych Central before
it got purchased by, there was a different person
who was the editor at the time and then it got
purchased. And so I believe this article now
maybe made one of the few that remained, which
actually I only wrote the introduction to that
article. that was written by the American Psychoanalytic
Association. They had contacted me and requested
to do a guest post. But you had some interesting
questions about love and how to think about love,
which got me thinking. And I went back to reading
a little bit of what Freud wrote about it and
kind of reformulating uh, some of his thoughts,
uh, through my experience with the Freudian School
of Quebec and, um, learning from the psychoanalysts
there, uh, Willie Apollon, Danielle Bergeonon,
and Lucy Kenton, uh, and kind of, uh, also basing
all of, um, my experience, uh, with, uh, clients
I work with, uh, couples I work with, families.
And I work with young adults who kind of struggle
in their relationships. So this question of love
is actually it's quite fundamental. So I could
say more about that, but. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah,
some kind of general questions that I had, and
maybe you can just kind of speak to this is I
was curious about what were Freud's views on
love? Did he believe it was possible to be altruistic?
Would Freud say that it was possible to love
our neighbors as ourselves or that that was a
good thing or a bad thing? One in particular,
does loving everyone as we love ourselves deflate
its value? But those are some kind of questions
I came up with and I was hoping maybe you could
speak to that. Yeah, those are very interesting
questions. I think you can and from our conversation
earlier, it sounds like you are kind of exploring
different, different aspects of psychoanalytic
writing and its application. But the question
of love, I think, and The way that Freud wrote
about it, so there's several essays on the psychology
of love that he wrote. The one that originally
had come up to my mind when I read your questions
were the one on transference love, which he wrote
about in the techniques of psychoanalysis. They're
mostly written for clinicians who want to work
with psychoanalytic patients. And in that essay
he explores the love that the patient may have
towards their analyst or their doctor and he
interprets that through transference. That was
one of his essays on transference. It's an obstacle
to the work of psychoanalysis, this falling in
love. And this we use nowadays in the clinical
mental health field and in psychology, everybody
speaks about transference, right? But at the
time, I think it was quite revolutionary kind
of these ideas that he was trying to explore.
And the other essay that he writes on object
choices, his essay on narcissism. I'm not sure
if you've read any of those. And then he has
two other ones in which he talks about the, I
have them right here actually, a special type
of choice of object made by men is the one and
then the other one is on the universal tendency
to debasement in the sphere of love. Have you
read those essays at all? Do you know about them?
No, no. So those are some of the major ones,
but what occurred to me while going back to them
and rereading some of them was that Freud was
primarily writing on the one hand, he was mostly
writing about neurotic patients, I think. And
on the other hand, he was also primarily writing
in the sphere of what I would call like what
Lacan calls the imaginary register. So I don't
know if you know anything about Lacan, Jacques
Lacan, but he was. It's really complex. Right.
So he was a psychoanalyst in France and the school,
the Freudian School of Quebec is a little bit
kind of in my mind kind of post Lacanian. So
we think of a lot of his concepts, but also kind
of taking them a step further. Are you with me?
Sorry, you froze there for a second. Taking them
a step further and applying them to kind of what
we're faced with today with mondializacion is
a concept by Willy Apollon of the confrontation
of civilizations today. and different cultures
and what that means. So the love that I think
Freud was writing about in my mind is what I
would term here like imaginary love. And I think
so that's borrowing the term of the imaginary
register of Wakhan and also the imaginary transference
that Willy Apollon talks about. So this is just
a different way of looking at transference. And
I don't know how does this strike you, is what
I'm saying. I have a whole explanation about
what I mean by this. Yeah, go ahead and go into
that. I'm not exactly familiar with the imaginary.
Well, it really makes a distinction between the
imaginary transference and the symbolic transference.
But when I think about love, I'm thinking that
we fall in love with the image that the other
has for us, or the image that we project onto
the other, or that the other, the social link,
or in the world that we live in. So that image
is... more closely related to our egos. And when
you read Freud, he talks quite a lot about the
ego, the object choice, the pleasure principle,
sexual instincts, right? So the ego is different
from what Lacan I think talked about and what
we talk about the Freudian school of Quebec,
which is the subject of the unconscious or desire.
So Lacan introduces the concept of desire there.
That tends to complicate things, but the image
that we have or the ego is one aspect of a human
and is different from the intimate experience
that each one of us has that nobody else has
access to and so Personally, I think I've been
kind of preoccupied with this question of love
I think for quite a while and I your question
made me think through just the phases of that
I in my personal experience and a lot of the
love I think that a neurotic would experience
I think is very much in the field of this imaginary
love in relation to the other person. And another
thing that we might say or that we might say
is that love is usually a symptom. It's a symptom
of the chronic, our entire love life may be considered
as such, mostly because When we're little, we
create these blueprints based on the relationships
that we have with our primary caregivers about
what it means to be loved, what's expected of
us in order to be loved and approved. And then
the neurotic typically creates a whole solution
to how to be in the world based off of what goes
on in that intimate experience, what Freud might
call the id. right, the unconscious, the out
of language, and then the expectations and the
rules and the norms in the world that the ego
is going to create some kind of compromised version
of itself to be able to exist in both of these
spheres, the sphere of the unconscious and the
world outside of the body. And so this blueprint
that we follow tends to, I think, serve as a
foundation for our relationships moving forward,
right? And it gets with every next stage of development,
puberty, adolescence, young adulthood, we kind
of tend to build on that blueprint. And what
Willie and the analysts of DFQ have created was
the concept of the fantasy of seduction. So This
blueprint creates a structure within which we
function and patterns that repeat in a person's
life that are based on this fantasy of seduction.
We behave a certain way in order to be loved,
to receive love. which we're all human beings.
We're all in relation to others. We need others.
It's fundamental that we have others in our lives
so you can see how deeply rooted this is. But
it's certainly a deviation from what Freud talked
about. This will be different, I think, for the
perverse subject, for the psychotic subject.
So you mentioned earlier when we chatted before
this that you've been interested in psychosis
also and For the psychotic, I think love will
be very different. It's not going to be the same
kind of relational object, relational experience.
The psychotic often is interested in things other
than themselves, but the delusion tends to serve
as an obstacle. to that concern, to that love
for something outside of themselves. For the
neurotic person, the fantasy of seduction is
an obstacle. So our symptom, being in love with
another person, is often an obstacle to kind
of looking internally at our own desire and bringing
that to life, which is what Freud kind of touched
on in his essay on Transference Love. I think
in therapy says when the patient is in love with
the clinician, it's an obstacle to the patient
actually looking internally of what's going on
for them. And often when people enter analysis,
if they fall in love even with somebody else
outside of the analysis, they become so preoccupied
with this other person that it's hard for them
to actually look internally. So that's something
that one needs to work through. In order to get
to a much deeper subjective experience When you
say yeah, no, that's that's fun. Thank you. So
when you say a symptom Let me for example. I
just read this book a shadow of the figure of
light by this union and he was arguing that For
the alcoholic or the one addicted to substances
that they have a spiritual problem and that well
Jungians would say we all have spiritual problems,
but so they have. And so when they intake alcohol,
alcohol is like a spirit. And yeah, it's a symptom.
But if you understand the symptom and what it's
trying to tell you about maybe what's out of
line or out of kilter, then you know something
more about yourself. And is it? somewhat similar
to say that love is a symptom or like in terms
of the transference. At first, Freud thought
of it as a something blocking the progress of
the work. But then he came to look at it as actually
this is something that we can use in in order
to better understand where this is coming from
and what it says about the person. And then we
can point it back to them. Is it similar? Yeah.
Well, those are two separate issues that maybe
they're connected to just in terms of alcohol
because one of the arguments is that, you know,
alcohol is primarily concentrated on the oral.
as a partial object of the body and it satisfies
certain needs for people that relate to very
primitive, primordial relationship with a primary
caregiver and the breath. And so you can talk
about all kinds of things in terms of nurturing
and connection. trauma if you will so so that's
that's in and of itself a whole a whole thing
but I think you're right transference if one
well there's different positions that different
psychoanalysts will work with that if you're
an object relational psychoanalyst you might
use this transference love and interpret it and
work in that The psychoanalysis that I'm talking
about and that I write about in the practical
psychoanalysis blog and the one that I'm practicing
is outside of that. So the analyst needs to remain
outside of these object relational dynamics because
they mostly serve as an obstacle to the subject
in achieving or getting access to their desire.
there wouldn't be any interpretation of this
for the patient. They may be encouraged to speak
about it or there may not be any comment on that
if they mentioned it. So it depends on who is
speaking and what the patient's history is because
it's hard to generalize these things because
they're obviously very subjectively motivated.
And it will be different for a different subject.
I don't think I've ever heard of a psychoanalyst
not like using or interpreting the transference.
Yeah. So that goes back to what I said at the
beginning, the concept of Willy Appalon. This
is what we call the imaginary transference as
far as I understand it. And that's something
that we don't necessarily we are aware of it.
as a clinician or an analyst, one can be aware
of what's going on because they know the history
of the person. But we don't interfere or we don't
intervene at that level. We try to stay outside
of it because if we did, then we become yet another
other who is part of the fantasy of seduction
for the patient. And this is again, speaking
of neurotic people, they will be slightly different
if we're talking about a perverse person, like
a perverse structure according to a cons formulation
in the psychotic. There you have a scenario and
with the psychotic you have a delusional enterprise
and those are different ways of situating the
work, I think. That's very interesting. I would
like to delve further into that. topic alone
at some point. Thanks for bringing that to my
attention. Willie Apollon. Okay. Yes, Willie
Apollon has a lot of, yeah, they've written a
lot of him, Daniel Bergeron, and Lucy Kenton.
Okay. And I can send you the names afterwards
and actually point you to another podcast. That
is very interesting that you may find some inspiration
from. That's done by one of the members of the
EFQ. Her name is Fernanda Negrete and the podcast
is called Penumbra Cast. So there she has an
interview actually with Willie Apollon. So I
think you may like that. Yeah. Okay, cool. Thank
you. This came to my mind, so you were talking
about love being a symptom and how it's kind
of a reflection of our own ego. So like the typical
example, would that be something similar to,
you know, there's a, let's say that I'm not a
very creative person, but there's this person
that's very creative and I fall in love with
them. I would, in some, the forms of thought,
you might say that that's an indication that
you long to be more creative and that you see
it out there. You value it. Maybe you don't have
that developed, but you see it out there and
you fall in love with that person who, you know,
symbolizes that. And then hopefully you don't
just stop there, but you grow closer to them
in the way that they are and they help you develop
your your creativity or your personality. Is
that somewhat kind of similar to what you're
talking to as a symptom? Yeah, but this is what
this is what Freud talked about, actually. He
he talked about this and that's on that's in
his essay on narcissism. He talks about two types
of love. One is according to the narcissistic
type. And I'm quoting here from page five five
five and in the Freudian reader edited by Peter
Gay here. So according to the narcissistic type,
you fall in love with what a person himself is,
what he himself was, what he himself would like
to be. or someone who was once part of himself.
So that's part of his narcissistic type of love,
right? Okay. And then he calls the other one
an eclectic attachment type. So you fall in love
with the woman who, the person falls in love
and he talks about, he uses me here, right? The
woman who feeds him or the man who protects him.
So that was his first kind of definition. So
that's all part of, I think, yeah, the seagull
psychology began there. Do you agree with the
kind of colloquial, you hear everyone say it
nowadays, like, how am I supposed to love someone
else if I can't love myself? Well, I actually
To a certain degree, I do agree, but people fall
in love all the time with others who perhaps
love them more than they can love themselves.
And that's part of the whole system that keeps
them together, right? You just found somebody
that you can see yourself in their eyes or something
that they can, you know, you can see yourself
in the reflection of their eyes or how they see
you or what they imagine. That's also that's
all part of this kind of imaginary love that
I that I mentioned that I feel like. I talked
about and what's the symptom. But I think there's
a different love that I wanted to speak about
that goes a step further from that, which will
be in a way you can say once you have found the
love. for yourself, but not just for the self
that you present to other people, not the love
for your ego, but the love for your own desire
or your own spirit, spirit, your own creative
spirit. And then you can connect with other people
on this kind of more I guess we could say spiritual
level, but it doesn't have anything to do with
religion. But it's a connection with another
creative spirit than the other, right? Willy
Apple has this concept of the spirit that he's
developed for a while, that it kind of has something
to do with, and he also uses the word quest.
for the person's desire. So once you've been
able to find love for that within oneself, that
also connects to other concepts like the concept
of the feminine and the creative energy that
we all have. I think then it allows a different,
and once you've worked through your own fantasy
of seduction for your own self and traverse that,
then I think that opens up a space for a different
kind of love for other people. One that connects
to something beyond just our own selves. And
I have a couple of examples of that. For instance,
publicly, I'm going to declare my love for President
Zelensky. President Zelensky, for instance. And
that is me connecting with the spirit in him.
and what he brings to humanity. When I listen
to an interview, for example, that he's giving,
he gave one to 60 Minutes. That was, I think,
broadcasted last week or the week before. And
we see this man who's in the body, but who is
embodying the spirit in him that's fighting for
something that's beyond his personal self. And
that kind of love that I can have for him, it
brings me to tears listening to his interview.
And that kind of love has nothing to do with
what kind of a man he is in the bedroom with
his wife. Does that make sense? The way that
his wife would love him has nothing to do with
how he can be loved by people for whom he is
standing up for. It's a similar feeling of love
that I can have for somebody who I'm listening
to on my couch, for instance, or a child that
I'm working with who's really struggling, but
there's something in them that they have to contribute.
There's a creative spirit in them that I can
listen to and listen for and try to support.
But probably the biggest or the strongest way
that I felt that kind of love will be for, for
instance, for my children. I have two of them.
But it's not the type of narcissistic love that
Freud talked about where a child is experienced
as an extension of the self and a fulfillment
of all the wishes that a parent wanted for themselves
but couldn't have. But more as two separate human
beings who have something they could contribute
to the world. that may be different from what
I want for them and yet supporting them in becoming
who they need to become. So this kind of love
Willie talks about is part of the register of
the sublime. I would call it real love that connects
to the register of the real too. For me, there's
something out of out of language really, and
it's a feeling that I have that I am willing
to kind of give my own life to make it, to continue
this other thing. The same way that I think Zelinsky
is willing to give his own life to fight for
what he called Spravedligust, which is justice.
So... Yeah, I'm not sure how you're hearing that,
but it's different from the neurochemical physiological
love and the release of hormones in the brain
and the attachment one will have to a person
based off of skin -to -skin contact, right? This
is a different kind of love I'm talking about.
Yeah, and you bring up a lot of good points because
when it comes to something like love, there is,
I think it's an endless a bottomless pit of,
we can never get to the bottom of, we have to
go through all these different definitions and
types of love. And I'm glad that you brought
up the example of the love that you have for
your kids. That's something I was thinking of
earlier as well. I think that what you say makes
a lot of sense and I'm trying to think that towards,
so maybe the sublime love then. Let's say kind
of that, And maybe this doesn't have to be tied
to a religion, but kind of that you've heard
of people experiencing this on something like
MDMA or some type of a psychoactive drug. So
the type of where you just feel like you're one
with the universe and you realize that others
are also one with the universe and that you're
all interconnected. You all come from the same
source. You all you are all. One. Just popped
up in different in different segments, basically.
And then that kind of. The Christian love command
of loving your neighbor as yourself or kind of
that. More altruistic love is that would that
kind of fall into the sublime love? Is that possible
realistic? It's a very tall order I think I think
in one of your questions there was also a question
of is this like a developmental state or something
and and I do believe that there is a certain
developmental aspect to it because You know when
we're younger children It makes perfect sense
to be entirely self -focused for quite a while
because we still live in a world where, and our
brains are still developing. Up to age about
12 or so, we kind of live very much in this egocentric
kind of space. Once abstract thought comes into
play and people are able to hold separate ideas,
two conflicting ideas being true at the same
time. Once they have a certain moral development,
I think you were asking about moral development
there, then you're able to see the two separate
truths can be contradicting and true at the same
time. You can love multiple people at the same
time. You can have conflicting feelings. I do
believe that there is a certain stage of or phase
of development. And the way I think about it
is in the process of analysis, it is somewhat
of a developmental trajectory. to reach a place
in your analysis where you're no longer concerned
about your own ego or your own self but you're
concerned about something outside of yourself
outside of your own ego something that's going
to surpass you that goes beyond the time that
you have on this earth that could potentially
remain after your time on this earth but that
also concerns other people so And that has to
do with, I think I have that feeling sometimes
when I read certain writers who are no longer
with us, right? And the same way you can read
Freud who's no longer with us, but his spirit
is alive in his writing. So yeah, I think to
loving another person as you love yourself, I
would add loving another person more than you
love yourself is actually where one can get to
and but loving that which they can contribute
to humanity as such. Regarding the drug use and
you know, getting in these psychedelic states.
I there's perhaps something of people's unconscious
that they're able to access while they're on
drugs. that stays with them, but I honestly don't
feel like one needs to do that in order to access
that part about oneself. One can do that in analysis
and have that feeling perfectly sober towards
other people, you know? I'm just advocating here.
Yeah, because at first when you. brought that
up, I was thinking, yeah, meditation too, that's
something that really brings it about, but I
don't think I had thought about psychoanalysis
bringing about that kind of deep experiential
feeling of love for other people, humanity, that's
cool. Yeah, I think that's in... humanity in
its in its form and in its present but in it
also in its future right because we live in a
certain culture we live in certain civilizations
and those things tend to tend to pass us but
as humans we remain right and we remain in thanks
to living on an earth that we need to preserve
and one day perhaps we'll have to surpass if
we were to survive. So having that look for what
humanity has to bring I think is important. And
yeah, it's one of the goals I think of psychoanalysis,
if you will, being able to get to that place
as a subject, as a human and then sharing that
with others, which is why when we first started,
I told you there's a very specific definition
of what a psychoanalyst is. at the Freudian School
of Quebec. And it's impossible for one to accompany
another person to this place that I'm talking
about without having gone through it themselves.
Because if you are stuck in these other egocentric
or ego to ego or object relations kind of dynamics,
you're still, you're not outside of that. The
seduction piece for the neurotic for instance,
and you can't really operate outside of it, right?
And most of the psychoanalysts I think in the
United States At least the way I read their writing
and the way I hear them and I've been involved
in this field for quite a while now I think a
lot of them function still in that parameter
of within the fantasy of seduction. And they
operate within that place of transference love
that Freud wrote about, and they operate within
the imaginary transference. To get to something
outside of that, it requires a very specific
work that each one of us has to do that allows
us to then be a company another. And so the EFQ
has the process of the past conclusive in which
you testified to your own experience and analysis
and in that then your love for this something
else gets elaborated. And I don't think other
people talk about it as love. This is what your
questions kind of made me think of. Tracy McNulty
has a very interesting interview with Fernanda
in that podcast I mentioned to you. Fernanda,
I believe it's actually the very first episode.
And she elaborates a lot more specifically about
what a psychoanalyst means and what's the past
going to receive there. Okay. I feel like I have
a whole new world to explore. Yeah. I'm so glad
to hear that, yeah. I'm glad to hear that. I
want to be respectful of your time. I did want
to allow you a few minutes to speak to your experience
and your practice. And from my understanding,
you work with children and adolescents. And yeah,
can you tell us a little bit about that and how
you incorporate psychoanalysis into your work
with children and adolescents too? Yeah. Well,
it's a very good question and probably it's an
ongoing question because the psychoanalysis that
I just described is it's not exactly possible
with somebody who's still in the process of becoming
a human, right? But I certainly incorporate,
I mean that's how I... been trained for so many
years and how I think about things. I certainly
incorporate the meta psychology all the time.
And I try to create a space in my practice for
young people for what is outside of their social
context, their familial context. And that also
means making space for their parents. and what
in them has remained unresolved that may be causing
problems unconsciously, if you will, on their
relationships. And to relate it back to love,
I think what ends up happening a lot in families
is that people don't realize that what they may
be doing in a family may be making their children
feel like they're not loved. And that has long
term effects. for generations actually. And so
part of my work is to try to help people understand
how what they say and what they do is affecting
their children. And I also try to kind of empower
the kids to have a space of their own to process
through these things so that they're not traumatic
one day, right? So they're not traumatic. But
so that's one aspect of it. I guess that relates
to love I also work with a lot of people who've
been through trauma so young adults who've experienced
trauma And to me because psychoanalysis can take
a long time sometimes The reason why I work with
young people is because the sooner you start
trying to look at yourself and addressing some
of those issues the better So I try to make that
space for people And sometimes the work is, you
know, it's a long -term kind of work, but I find
it very rewarding when young people can really
take ownership of their life from an early age
and make something of themselves and bring in
their desire to life. Yeah, that's got to be
awesome to maybe start working with someone at
14 or 15 years old. And then maybe now they're
18 or 19 and they've just developed this sense
of understanding themselves, kind of understanding,
you know, their family history and why we do
what we do and and how much. How much influence
do I have directly over these decisions and actions
and behaviors? And what does that say about me?
What does it say about my family? That's just
a very different. mindset to be in. I wish I
had given more pause as a teenager. It's hard.
I mean, it's very hard, I think, as a teenager,
because you still, you know, trying to figure,
and especially as an adolescent, it's something
that one needs to kind of confront, I think,
to a certain degree, on your own. And in fact,
I will tell you, it is very difficult to engage
an adolescent in this kind of work because they
kind of are like, I'm on my own, folks. I'm going
to figure this out. But it's an ongoing question,
I think, how to apply these psychoanalytic principles
and that experience to different structures,
to different social structures, to the family.
And I'm working with other people in an organization
called Spiral. It's the society for psychoanalytic
and interdisciplinary interventions and research
after Lacan. it's a mouthful. But we are working
on these kinds of meta psychological issues and
how to apply them to socio cultural and political
context to the clinical work with the family
to a clinic of psychosis, if you will. So to
writing, and so it's an ongoing, it's an ongoing
work that's come out of that. So Yeah, that's
awesome. Thank you for allowing me an opportunity
to speak about this to your audience. Yeah, of
course. Two things that came up. One, I'm going
to get this quote wrong, but I think Carl Jung
said something about the first half of life is
in preparation for the second half of life. Kind
of like what you were saying, the first half
of life, you're kind of external focused. How
much can I take control of the external world?
and order it in the way that I want. And then
the second half of life, you kind of. It kind
of in the reverse is true to where that's you
kind of start to go in more as you start to lose
strength or your looks or whatever it might be.
That's just something that popped in my head.
And two, I hope you didn't take offense to in
the beginning, I introduced you as a student
of psychoanalysis. I was thinking yesterday,
actually in the APA, one of our like One of the
values is to be a lifelong learner. And I was
thinking to myself, you know, I don't think lifelong
learner hits the nail on the head. I think what
we shouldn't just be lifelong learners, we should
be lifelong students. And so that's exactly how
you said like, yeah, even though you've been
in the game for a while and you're part of the
school and you're doing all this research, I
would I think being a student of psychoanalysis
is a is a high. Yes. It's a high bar. Yes, that
was a good way to put it. Yeah. So thanks for
having me here. Yeah. Thanks, Mihyla, for joining
me. I really appreciate the conversation and
the new resources and references. I'm going to
check out that podcast and look into some of
these people you've mentioned. And yeah, can
you send me a few names you mentioned throughout
our time? Yes, I will send you an email. We can
follow up by email.