Psychoanalysis of typical mindset. The psychology behind the mistakes. Why we do mistakes? He wrote that mistakes generally happen because we failed to concentrate on a specific task in our hands. So if you perform any task or you doing any work which is not of your interest then the probability of having mistakes in that specific task will be increased. And if you fail to put your interest in some task you will make it more difficult for you than it actually has and that difficulties lead you towards the mistakes in that task.
Psychoanalysis of the typical mindset. Why some people behave as they are? There is no 1 to 1 correlation between objects and perceptions, which would imply an active object and a passive receiver. The unbelief of a fantasy may consequences!
Kant did this and it is where we get unconscious instead of nonconscious. Un leaves room for movement and escapes binary logic. The answer to this is that the only reason one would negate a belief into a disbelief or disavow it would be if one already believed in it to begin with.
We believe in some sort of coherence or meaning, or attribute value to certain events and causal explanations before we have knowledge. I have no intimate knowledge of how my internal organs are operating at this very moment, but I have faith that my heart will continue to pump blood.
The concept Britton introduces after elaborating on these notions is Counter belief pg. It is overlooked in most psychoanalytic encounters. In everyday language, this is is when someone interviewing for a job, when asked what their greatest weakness is, replies with something they don't feel too bad about admitting - 'I work too hard' or 'Sometimes I am disorganized.
I don't have much more to say on this as I think it speaks for itself and the reader should use their own mind to construct a belief or a meaning here instead of relying on me Entry Some Notes on Freud: A Primer for Andre Green We will briefly cover some main points from two of Freud's integral papers before ending with a general explication of a basic psychoanalytic concept. Freud seems to indicate the presence of absence.
We cannot imagine an absence go ahead, try and think of nothing or a lack or absence of something — you have to think of the thing first before you negate it! We can only symbolize an absence, and even that symbolization of an absence is itself some sort of presence.
I want to add that often we do not know something X is present or absent especially if it is unconscious , but we may recognize when X deviates from its current position x moves from present to absent or from absent to present. In movement we tend to recognize it. We do not experience presences and absences, but experience, only in hindsight, the feeling of the motion between presences and absences.
A thought had a change. Motion is necessarily bound up with time. This idea of retrospective temporal change is important. The dangerous thing is then the rational mind can apply some sort of context to the unconscious act and quickly subsume it to a defensive narrative. In other words; 1: Unconscious idea. This is where some psychoanalysts get off with claiming character or ego as displaced or empty.
What I say I am is never really what I am or was because I have already assigned a different meaning to it then there was in the moment unless one is analyzed for many years perhaps? In this same paper where Freud introduces these conceptualizations of presence and absence is a wonderful comparison of the mind to photography on page - photo negative, photo positive, etc. To an extent this is true: negation is necessary for thought. Imagine an endless association of positive phenomenon or positive words closely attached to representations.
This is the horror of psychosis in many ways and we will touch upon this later with Green's Work of the Negative. Inhibition of Symptoms With a little bit of presence and absence covered we can quickly get into the metapsychology. Aside : does this not show the absurdity of the notion of a biological death drive which we will get to later?
I think so. We should move towards reframing the death drive as a lack of available libido due to poor investment, not an 'active' force itself In Deleuze and Guattari's language, the death drive is an articulation of libido or the life drive. End aside. Now we have a subject with a symptom or inhibition.
That is, it should be clear to us why our patients cling to their illness. A symptom: Occurs from repression of instinct Is a sign or substitute for an instinct Is a strange side effect or new phenomenon for an instinct Is necessarily pathological. An inhibition: Often of a sexual and aggressive nature or related to these instincts.
Often a restriction or lowering of a function of the ego. An example of a symptom is: Organ failure Hysteric reactions such as body seizing, going blind, etc. An example of an inhibition is: Inability to write fingers cannot clinch pen, mind cannot produce ideas to be written. Other interesting comments on this paper: Freud warns us that we may be lead astray if we overestimate the role of the super ego in the process of repression.
Repression is originally the ego rejecting the id. He reminds us that the ego is the organized part of the id, and the super ego is a specialized part of the ego articulations, not rigid separate entities. In this sense, there is really only id libido and its derivatives this supports my above aside- Libido and its vicissitudes. No wonky death drive. We do not have a protective shield for internal processes, but we do have one for outside, so it is likely that our internal protective measures are modeled on our external ones.
Though Freud does not go this far - this helps us understand projection. The inside needs to be put outside so that it may be dealt with. Freud offers us a helpful definition for resistance: an action undertaken to protect repression anti-cathexis. Out of the economic metapsychology, which is built on a notion of presence of absence, comes the death drive.
Some Notes on the Death Drive The 19th century was arguably the century of mechanism, and was a big year for physics. In short, Freud, relying on physicist laws like the law of constancy or conservation with a heavily implied use of the law of entropy as well as using Fechner and other scientists of the time, argues for a drive separate to libido which he calls the death drive.
The argument loses its sense of profundity when laid bare: There is inert, inanimate material. Somehow it forms a crust or surface upon which tension levels are required to be regulated. Following the law of constancy, the organism must want to reduce external tension to maintain a homeostatic internal state. Too much or too little tension disrupts this threshold and creates in the basic psychic apparatus an unpleasant tension.
Thus, we have the pleasure principle. An organism wishes to maintain a certain base level of tension in relation to its environment.
Despite these shaky vitalistic beginnings, it gets worse. Oh, not to mention a little jab at Nietzsche power instinct! With all this said, this reading is absolutely key to psychoanalysis and metapsychological ecopnomics. Freud was obviously a genius, and his attempt to tie together various epistemological and methodological models to form a philosophical view on the human organism is excellent.
And with this said, the death drive is not naturalistic or scientific concept, as Deleueze and Guattari point out, it is a way out of a problem: If pleasure guides us, then why do we have war? Why do my patients maintain these 'bad' habits? Why do I, Freud, smoke my jaw into oblivion and alienate all my friends? The death drive brings the conflict back to an internal level. Ok, time for Andre Green.
Andre Green will come later. I've slipped too much into the deep theoretical and clinical aspects of psychoanalysis. We need to get back to be being quick and dirty. A follower of the blog sent a podcast my way Stephen Jenkinson — Die Wise: How to Understand the Meaning of Death , kindly asking for my psychoanalytic take. Jenkinson is talking about death, a subject that psychoanalysis, for a number of reasons, has always had a lot to say about. Because of this having a vague of idea of something that never happened , and because we at some point know it will happen, that is, we will die which the existential psychoanalysts pick up nicely on , we live with an ambivalence or anxiety towards death.
But this is all old news. Pragmatically: As psychotherapists we often deal with people who have an ambivalent a word Jenkinson talks about for a bit relationship to death. Other patients come because they are afraid of their wishes to kill or destroy. Others are not aware of their suicidal or homicidal wishes or conflicts and come to us with symptoms that expresses these conflicts. Schizophrenics, as they progress through treatment, are able to talk about having childhood experiences where as children they feared killing their parents or destroying the whole world in their imagination, not often in reality….
We all have thoughts about things without acting on them. To be brief and reductive, when these people can get in touch with these feelings and wishes their depressive symptoms begin to lessen and they are able to have a wider range of feelings.
Chronic Anorexics constantly disavow the terrible feelings related to the danger they put themselves in through malnutrition. And this is of course without mentioning that we as therapists might be working with people who are not depressed but melancholic due to a death of a loved one, or their own impending death due to a chronic illness. But back to Jenkinson.
But he is also Nietzschean in his quest for affirmation, his intolerance for morose and depressive defenses against life, and Buddhist mystification of passive death and, as the scholars say, was not Nietzschean a self-aware Christian trying to remedy his own nihilistic illness?
These people, in attempt to prepare themselves in advance for hurt as to maximize the enjoyment of life and the minimization of pain utilitarianism end up living hollow, lonely lives devoid of meaning. The safe life is not a good life. Life is about risk and this is different than constantly engaging in danger…. Platitudes aside and that word is a little too harsh for Jenkinson , what Jenkinson is saying here is that some things do produce negative feelings in us, and rather than protect ourselves by disavowing these feelings through using euphemisms, defenses, etc.
Death can in fact be scary, and it is certainly inevitable. Get in touch with the feelings this produces in us. Jenkinson takes the position that it is her duty to accept her death in order to affirm her life. Despite the truth of this, Jenkinson does not realize that a person sometimes needs to rely on a defense against death in order to recuperate some enjoyment before the final act.
It is my opinion that Jenkinson gets a little moralistic about things people should die this or that way and that life affirmation is for living; a patient who is near death does not necessarily need to affirm life by admitting to their death. However, different therapists will handle these situations in their own ways.
If you want to figure out how to live we can do that together. If you want to die I will help you check into a hospital, or you can find another therapist. Entry 16 - A Polemic for a polemic A short polemic. A schizo may be better off taking a walk rather than lying on the couch and having some stupid Freudian attempt to interpret his word salad.
Yes, analytic discourse is to an extent artificial. But a schizo is not better out for a walk if when on this walk he can't pass a stranger without thinking they have read his mind; without thinking that if he locks eyes with someone they surely must be following him, watching him; that if he lets 'bad' thoughts slip into his mind - such as murdering people - that the people he sees as he walks will in fact be murdered; without believing that the world will implode if he does not perform this or that ritual, etc.
That is, a clinical schizo cannot enjoy a walk, much anything else. What they need is something artificial because the world is already too real. They are already on the outside, in a relationship with the outside world. This blog is in part me venting frustration a cope, as they would say , part me sharing bits of knowledge or experience if we can posit a difference This entry is composed entirely of the last item, that is, reader requested topics though reader requested is quite narcissistic of me.
To be brief, Freud 'discovers' dream analysis in the late s, writing Interp. In this text he analyzes only his own dreams. The thinking on the matter is simple - we aren't conscious of everything that goes on in our body, our thoughts and feelings are byproducts of our body's natural vital processes, therefore, theoretically and empirically, we are not fully conscious of all thoughts and feelings, etc. This maps onto everyday experience. Dreams provide evidence of the unconscious in that their symbols can not 'have to' be traced back to everyday experiences the dreamer experienced recently, or thoughts and feelings the dreamer finds meaningful to their life narrative.
This marks the first significant time in history that dreams are looked at through a materialist lens i. Now, in the 60ss a big rift in psychoanalytic dream studies develops. It can be summed up as the positivists vs. Positivists: dreams 'have' meaning. Each symbol has a meaning waiting to be discovered. You can map out consistencies between dreams etc. Hermeneuticists: dreams don't take on meaning until the analysand gives them meaning via the context in which they bring up the dream, and the contexts in which the dream was created, or, until the analyst interprets the dream in a meaningful way that 'sticks' with the analysand.
Freud was a little bit of both, which both parties seem to deny. So, inside psychoanalysis dream analysis gets pulled in two directions - i. Unfortunately, therapy as a whole drifts away from models of meaning making in the late 70s and early 80s and instead moves towards ego psychology in america, which is much more pragmatic and focused on defenses, and things like CBT, which makes claims to empirical science and behavioral principles to which dreams are part of the 'black box' of the mind which positive statements can't be made regarding.
So, outside of psychoanalysis, science and therapy with their physicalist bias move away from looking at 'heady' or 'airy' things such as dreams as valid. This move left dreams to fall into the dreaded discursive gap where it was picked up by pop-psych, esoterica, and mysticism dream journals, dream symbol books. As I went over earlier in this blog, the analyst utilizes transference to help the analysand in whatever way they want or need help.
Transference is when the patient transfers ideas, feelings, assumptions, beliefs, etc. A very superficial but still significant reason an analyst may remain quiet is because the analyst may not yet know what the communication means, or may have an idea of what it means but wishes to let the train of thought or signifiers play out uninterrupted at conferences I've heard some Lacanians talk about waiting to see who or what 'other' the sentence is supposed to refer to Object relation analysts want to decipher what internal objects the patient is responding to in themselves and what perceived part object the analyst is, drive theorists will see what the drives will do when frustrated, ego and self psych analysts will see what kind of defense the patient erects to deal with their unrequited talk, etc.
The analyst may be quiet as to reduce stimuli and therefore induce the patient to project onto the therapist their wishes, beliefs, fears, etc. The analyst may also be quiet as to help the patient get in touch with their inner thoughts and feelings similar to how reduced stimuli, i.
Another reason the analyst may keep quiet is to assess character and maturation - when deprived, does the patient ask the therapist to be more active? Does the patient accept this and sulk? Does the patient get mad? These can be clues to the patients history and how they tended to resolve conflicts across their lifetimes. I give an example heavily coded as to not betray confidentiality : A patient relays a series of mundane facts about their life but inserts in the middle of these boring facts an alarming anecdote about doing something very dangerous and possibly life threatening.
The patient then continues with boring facts and then goes quiet. We sit in quiet. I observe internally the feeling of frustration. I trace the frustration back to the idea that the patient is trying to provoke me into being worried and losing my cool.
I also notice that I don't immediately believe the patient to have done such a crazy and dangerous thing. I wonder what the patient might get out of provoking me? I then wonder if perhaps the patient was doing a dangerous thing and my own narcissism - i.
All of this thought exists in my head during the silence. I then break the silence "Should I be worried about you? An entire session would bore. My most frequent reader send me a quote from a Zizek lecture. Is it not quite the opposite of what is said here? Yes, Ziz is completely incorrect. In a strange move, Ziz invokes a superego injunction in order to substantiate an abstraction that is not felt as a material entity in the body one should devote one's self to a cause greater than one's self.
Psychoanalysis is about analyzing down abstractions and superego injunctions so that one can understand one's own wants and needs and how they relate to a history of conflict and therefore one's self, not denigrate one's self piece of bullshit.
This is not say that there is surely a hard and fast self or unfractured ego as the lacanians will show well enough that this is a myth but rather to say that beneath all the play of signifiers there are real bodies, drives, and affect. If its one thing Lacanians never understand and what Freud, Andre Green, Laplanche, Deleuze and Guattari do is that there's a body, or material, underneath all the push and pull of lack and signification drive theory is overlooked by or rather distorted into a language game.
Where are the flows in Lacan? Where would one be less likely to find anything that flows than in…his texts? So, to use Ziz's quote 'The goal of psychoanalysis is precisely to bring you to the point where you can finally be in touch with the drives and conflicts that make up the thing we refer to hesitantly as the self, and once this is done, understand what one wants and therefore finally work for a need or want that falls on the side of constructive or life affirming existence.
This can be mean investing this libidinal drive into politics an ego sublimated object that should be taken balanced and maturely , religion a superego sublimated object that should be done in a life affirming manner , and love an Id sublimation that can be done in a meaningful manner. Not as catchy, but Ziz has always sacrificed profundity at the expense of making poop jokes. Ok, for the record I like Ziz, and he isn't totally wrong, what he really means is that the analyst brings the analysand out of their narcissistic bubble and helps them develop ego strength to the point where they can withstand being in a world with actual people - objects - rather than part objects and the projections we throw onto them Similarly, elsewhere Ziz makes an equally grievous error when he says.
Zizek isn't really a psychoanalyst He's a psychoanalytic philosopher. That is, he doesn't see patients, attend supervision, maintain a training analysis, contribute to or at clinical conferences, work at a clinic, etc. In the 60s Lacan made it so that anyone who wanted to be an analyst could train at his institute and, when they were ready, call themselves an analyst the whole in fights between American psychoanalysts, European psychoanalysts, and French european psychoanalysts is a large bit of history to cover I can assure you people do change.
Here is the way I will synthesize my experience with Ziz's proclamation and in doing so link it back to the emphasis on drive theory above: Yes, you do have to change 'the system that pushes people to do things' but that system is internal and it is the system of drives and their vicissitudes. Psychoanalysis does not work on an intellectual level which Ziz, an obsessional academic, is stuck at as indicated by his approach to theory and the anecdotes that one can find regarding his 'analysis' [if you can call it that] with Miller Polemic meant to evoke notions of Petersonian 'cultural marxism?
Statement meant to highlight that in the 50ss psychoanalysis in Europe, with the help of Lacan, came to be attached to Marx and social theory critical of the ego and subject while at the same time in America psychoanalysis was morphing into the opposite, individualized ego psychology?
Also no, though this is helpful to keep in mind. Statement meant to provoke a renewed interest in psychoanalytic practice and therefore also a renewed interest in psychoanalytic theory?
Popular psychoanalysis has come to be a CMC cycle that has 'lost similitude' Foucault or 'lost the symbol' Jung [Yes, I'm well aware of the methodological shakiness of mixing discourses like this, as well as the plain irony of talking about Marx through two thinkers, one antithetical to Marx the other indifferent We don't need to get lost in theoretical jargon to get at what this means and why it is important, we simply need to provide the following model from which the intelligent reader can synthesis their own meaning: 'Clinical' Psychoanalysis has built into it several feedback mechanisms - practices - that hone theory.
Theory can then be used to further hone practice and so on and so on What does this mean? I'm in a session with a patient. I have a theory or hypothesis regarding the patient how they feel, what they think, what they want, etc. I test it on my patient by taking my internal thoughts and feelings and forming them thoughtfully into a question or interpretation aloud. As Freud points out in several early papers, an interpretation is only as good as the patient's response to it whether it 'takes' or not, to use old medical jargon.
Even if, as an analyst, you have all these genius ideas of whats going on with the patient, if these ideas don't stick in the transference and help produce a transference conducive to the task of analysis whatever that task may be, i. Tl;dr: use a theory, get feedback from the patient, hone the theory. The stuff that works sticks with the patient and then sticks hopefully with the analysts who communicate with each other at conferences, lectures, classes, supervisions, etc.
Whether or not your theory catches on is essentially up to language games and cult of personality can you defeat or persuade your opponent. Academic debates disconnected from material circumstances real people and their actual experiences.
For example, theoretical psychoanalysts who don't see patients take film and cultural events as their object of analysis.
These objects cannot provide feedback to an interpretation. The object can be endlessly manipulated intellectually to fit the model, and the model can be manipulated to fit the event which is one latent critique D and G levy towards Freud in his treatment of the Wolfman and his conceptualization of Schreber. Never will Vertigo reply back to Zizek - 'No, you get me all wrong, I don't feel that way at all' just an example, I like Zizek's analysis of Vertigo This gets us to Andre Green's astute observation that, in simple terms, psychoanalysis is the only field wherein practice is theory and theory is practice, or what Marx was trying to get at in reconnecting theory to material D and G - form and content are interchangable; McLuahan - the medium is the message; Baudrillard - the simulation and the hyperreal; Nick Land and Mark fisher - theoryfiction and hyperstition, etc.
Green, in an interview in says " An exceptional intelligence and the ability to produce some very interesting works do not necessarily imply his adherence to the psychoanalytical experience How we act also helps us inform how we think.
The take away here is not another polemic against Lacan. Richards and T. Eliot are deeply influenced by the findings of Sigmund Freud.
Structuralism is a linguistic theory introduced by the Swiss Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure in s. According to Saussure, every language is mainly used for communication purpose. A sign is a combination of two elements namely a sound image and a concept. The concept is signified by the sound image. Therefore the sound image is called the signifier and the concept is the signified.
But there is no fixed relation between the sound image and the concept. Any sound image can be used for any concept. This is the arbitrary nature of sign. This is why hundreds of languages are emerged in the world.
The second principle is that every language is a structured system of arbitrary signs. Structuralism is an intellectual movement which began in France. It was first seen in the work of the great anthropologist Claude Levi Strauss and the literary work of Roland Barthes. The essence of Structuralism is that everything in the world including language is structured. Nothing is understood in isolation. Elimination of the element of random chance or obscurity helps many people to feel relieved, which might have produced the pleasure that contributed to the introduction of the desire to foretell the future.
Some of the preserved Mesoamerican etchings suggest that the defeated team did not lose just the match but their lives as well. Should the game in its manifestation really have been understood as a religious ritual, it is well possible that the defeated team was sacrificed to the gods. The manifest side of decapitation is always coupled with the latent one. Freud emphasized now and again that decapitation always means castration. On the latent symbolic level, the contestants in sports have always been and will be sexual competitors that males want to get rid of - at least by means of castration if not complete elimination, and this is exactly why the competitive game with its latent symbolic structure evolved.
The introduction of the religiously interpreted manifestation or disguise makes symbolic castration in the form of elimination decapitation a legitimate act. The sacrifice was not demanded by any deity but by the threatened men, who as sexual competitors fought for the most favorable position in wooing their libidinal objects of desire — women as the successors of their Oedipally experienced mother.
This is the universal libidinal paradigm which generated the agon paradigm of sports or, competitive games, which always have a symbolic libidinal structure. This sportological theoretical discourse needs a further in-depth look into the theory of sports games.
The principle of reality, viz. In this particular type of theorizing a hetero sexualized sports game, the Superego no longer plays an important role as it has become redundant.
The secondary elaboration does not intervene with the game in any other way than it would if the influence of the Superego was present. The Superego is totally confused and duped by the codified symbolic structure. The Id may now freely indulge in pleasure. Any discussion of football cannot disregard the fact that the development of the game was greatly improved by the regularity of the ball bounces and the clearly defined rules, be it in football, handball, basketball or even volleyball with no goal in sight, the latent structure of volleyball is conceptually slightly different and more complex in terms of interpretation.
The secondary elaboration , subsequently, made Naismith's basketball playable and helped define the rules in football. The number of players settled at eleven, the size of the goal was defined, and the size of the pitch was set at 90 to meters in length and at 45 to 90 meters in width. The meter penalty area and the goalkeeper's space were defined.
A centre circle was drawn to literally start the ball rolling. The match was divided into two halftimes, each lasting 45 minutes. The penalty kicks and the direct or the indirect free kicks were introduced. Fouls, misconducts, offside positions, substitutions, overtime in case of a tie in elimination matches , penalties red or yellow card or suspensions were introduced.
Also, referees and their assistants were introduced, who soon gained the tag of the symbolic representation of the Father figure. In the web of all the "secondary" circumstances, the game became truly playable, logical and reasonable. The changes were introduced gradually and in different places, first of all in England. The written rules are seconded by the unwritten ones, applying mostly to fair play. The University football code served as a basis to the newly founded English Football Association and was thereby clearly distinguished from the game called rugby, which was well spread around the town of Rugby in the middle of the 19 th century.
The new code of football was, however, first observed only twenty years later during a match between London and Sheffield. The match was a surprise to many sports football fans and was considered a watershed in the established way of thinking.
Until that time, nobody had thought of organizing football clashes between two teams from fairly distant places. After a couple of years, fifteen eleven according to some sources English football teams collected the money to finance the first Cup as the prize and then competed to determine the winner.
The popularity of the game was increased through the chain of these events as well as by the libidinal latent structure of the game linked to pleasure and the identification of the spectators. The Cup Final was watched by more than , people. Great Britain had a considerable number of colonies all around the world. Football was spread to the East by merchants. A textile trader is said to have presented it to the Russians. Turkey saw the first officially recorded match between the teams of English workers or officials at the British Embassy in Istanbul and Greek students who had seen the game played in England.
The English were keen travelers, and once traveling by train was made possible and relatively comfortable, tourism took off and had its fair share of influence in the spread of the game.
Football was brought to South America or Brazil, today a football super power, by sailors as early as , yet its zealous spread did not happen before several decades later. Canada , Australia and New Zealand started with their own, rather loose rules, making their ball game look like a hybrid between rugby and football. However, the paradigms of the goal and that of two opposing teams involved in a conflict were nevertheless observed - agon in classical Greek means conflict opposition , rather than a competition in the modern sense of the word.
During the period of the boom of "English football" the USA had cultivated its own sports. Particularly popular even then was American football, a variant of rugby. The first official intercollegiate match was played in New Brunswick, New Jersey, on November 6 th , That something in humans that experiences pleasure is the Id, the only one to be capable of "reading" and understanding the language of symbols the Ego and the Superego cannot compare with the Id in this meta-space.
A sports game needs to be translated or decoded to make sure that its latent message is understood. What is essential is the symbolic, unconscious, latent , and not the manifest content.
Once again: the structure and logic of a sports game is as good as identical with that of dreams. Sports may truly be interpreted on the basis of practically identical concepts as used in dream interpretation by Freud. During his entire life, Freud endeavored to write a scientific theoretical work for his successors to lean on when trying to understand and explain the human mental pathos and society in general.
We, however, focused here on sports and presented a meta-psychological approach that might be helpful in understanding sports, if, of course, the readers manage to rid themselves of the dislikes provoked by such pan hetero sexual theories. We shall ignore here the thought that Freud might have resented the above presented idea of the original heterosexuality of the human mind; hopefully, genetics will succeed before much longer in finding a clear answer as to the genetic determination of the heterosexuality of the human mental gender, which, affected by a specific type of "upbringing" or primary identification and in spite of the "normal" genes, can still be subject to further reinterpretation or even revision.
Arens, William The Great American Football Ritual. Natural History, Brill, Abraham A. Dundes, Alan Western Folklore From Game to War. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.
Feyerabend, Paul Proti metodi Against method. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. Freud, Sigmund Totem i tabu Totem and Taboo. Beograd: Matica Srbska. Interpretacija sanj The Interpretation of Dreams. Herald, Childe alias Thomas Hornsby Ferril Freud and football. New York: Reader in Comperativ Religion, James, Peter, Nick Thorpe Wonders of the Past! Ancient Inventions. New York: Ballantine Books.
Johnson, W. Branch Football, a Survival of Magic? The contemporary review, Kopkay, David, Perry D, Young The David Kopkay Story. New York: Money, John London: Karnac Books. Plenum US. Oxford University Press. Money, John and Anke A. Ehrhardt John Hopkins University Press, Money, John and James J.
Krivacska Prometheus Books. Montague, Susan P. Arens, The American Dimension. Louis: Alfred Publishing. Osredkar Radko Olimpija Olimp. Osredkar, Radko Patrick, George T. The psihology of football. American Jurnal of psychology, Rodgers, Bruce San Francisco. Rote, Kyle and Jack Winter The Language of Pro Football. New York.
0コメント