Psychoanalysis and neurology can only dialogue after accepting negative plasticity

Evidence

The confrontation of the etiological regimes of sexuality and cerebrality, and thus of psychoanalysis and neurology, can be fruitful only if it begins from such recognition. — Catherine Malabou, The New Wounded, 4333

Categorization

• XREF: Directly frames the reader’s stated debate between Malabou and psychoanalytic orthodoxy. — connects to: Psychoanalysis is only a temporary phase awaiting neurological confirmation — Catherine Malabou, The New Wounded: From Neurosis to Brain…, 437; Joining psychoanalysis and neurology remains an unfinished project — Catherine Malabou, The New Wounded: From Neurosis to Brain…, 443; Plasticity requires the dissolution of the thinking subject rather than its ratiocinative control — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 1249 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Plasticity requires the dissolution of the thinking subject rather than its ratiocinative control #expands (0.80) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 1249
• Neuroscience without a theory of transformation exposes itself to ideological co-option #qualifies (0.80)
• Neuroscience that skips theorizing biological-to-mental transition risks serving ideology. #corroborates (0.80)
• Destructive plasticity forms identity through deconstitution, not preservation #expands (0.75) — Catherine Malabou, The New Wounded, 202
• Cerebral trauma victims need a mode of speech outside psychoanalytic interpretation #exemplifies (0.75)
• Divine negativity manifests plasticity, not lack or passivity #corroborates (0.72) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 759
• Physical expressiveness precedes language as the negative that generates it #expands (0.70)