Print

Print


Nancy it is DSM 4. Diana

> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:03:48 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: dissociation--p.s. to Diana
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> The DSM 4 changed the name expressly to redefine "multiple personality" to "dissociative identity"--I think they are wrong about what it is and what words to use. I find other psychiatric accounts convincing. The change makes what is many simply a division by definition. I cannot tell if wikipedia is using DSM 3 or DSM 4, but as I've noted, it cannot be assumed to be accurate.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
> >>> Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> 11/21/07 10:27 AM >>>
> Dear Diana,
>
> It came back into use largely in the 1980s in connection with multiple personality, which was intensely studied in the 1970s and 80s. Neo-dissociation theory is a rethinking of it that helps explain many personality structures. It was a broader term in the early 20th century in the sense that it was, in Pierre Janet's theory, THE basis of hysteria.
> Nancy
>
> >>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 11/21/07 9:44 AM >>>
>
> Nancy,
>
> The DSM, or The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders recognizes dissociation as a term in current use, as in descriptions of Dissociative Amnesia, Multiple Personality Disorders and normal behaviors.
> "Attention to dissociation as a clinical feature has been growing in recent years as a concomitant to knowledge of post-traumatic stress disorder, and as neuroimaging research and population studies show its relevance. Dissociation most often makes the news with regards to soldiers' responses to wartime stress, rape victims with amnesia for details, and in occasional criminal trials where the question of whether a person with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) can be responsible for his or her actions."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)
>
> Diana> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:50:15 -0500> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: dissociation> To: [log in to unmask]> > Dear Rick,> > I have not read it, and I am glad to know about it. If Pound read it, Eliot must have known about it. The term "dissociation" was very common in psychological works then, but it was displaced by Freud's "repression" later. I think it is more helpful.> > I will look this up.> Thanks,> Nancy> > >>> Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> 11/20/2007 12:18 PM >>>> Nancy> > > > In flailing about amongst my Pound books this morning I came across the> small book "The Psychology of Insanity" by Bernard Hart. Hart is the> psychologist that Pound read while developing his ideas of the Image. > > > > Have you read in this book Hart's chapter, " Dissociation"? Hart> originally wrote the book in 1912 and it proved immensely popular. My copy> is the 3rd edition reprinted in 1923. I don't recall ever seeing Hart> referred to by Eliot or by any Eliot scholars!
> . If you have not seen it> perhaps it would aid in your studies of TSE's mental issues. > > > > I studied the book while trying to get a grasp on just what Pound was> talking about so cryptically when he wrote about the Image.> > > > Rick Seddon> > > > > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
> http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007


Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Power up!