Winner of the 2009 Goethe Award for Psychoanalytic Scholarship
Irwin Hirsch, author of Coasting in the Countertransference, asserts that countertransference experience always has the potential to be used productively to benefit patients. However, he also observes that it is not unusual for analysts to 'coast' in their countertransferences, and to not use this experience to help treatment progress toward reaching patients' and analysts' stated analytic goals. He believes that it is quite common that analysts who have some conscious awareness of a problematic aspect of countertransference participation, or of a mutual enactment, nevertheless do nothing to change that participation and to use their awareness to move the therapy forward. Instead, analysts may prefer to maintain what has developed into perhaps a mutually comfortable equilibrium in the treatment, possibly rationalizing that the patient is not yet ready to deal with any potential disruption that a more active use of countertransference might precipitate.
This 'coasting' is emblematic of what Hirsch believes to be an ever present (and rarely addressed) conflict between analystsa (TM) self-interest and pursuit of comfortable equilibrium, and what may be ideal for patientsa (TM) achievement of analytic aims. The acknowledgment of the power of analystsa (TM) self-interest further highlights the contemporary view of a truly two-person psychology conception of psychoanalytic praxis. Analystsa (TM) embrace of their selfish pursuit of comfortable equilibrium reflects both an acknowledgment of the analyst as a flawed other, and a potential willingness to abandon elements of self-interest for the greater good of the therapeutic project.
In this book Konstantinos Komaitis identifies a tripartite problem a " intellectual, institutional and ethical a " inherent in the domain name regulation culture. Using the theory of property, Komaitis discusses domain names as sui generis a e-propertya (TM) rights and analyses the experience of the past ten years, through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The institutional deficit he identifies, generates a further discussion on the ethical dimensions in the regulation of domain names and prompts Komaitis to suggest the creation of an environment based on justice.
The relationship between trademarks and domain names has always been contentious and the existing institutions of the UDRP and ACPA have not assisted in alleviating the tension between the two identifiers. Over the past ten years, the trademark community has been systematic in encouraging and promoting a culture that indiscriminately considers domain names as secondclass citizens, suggesting that trademark rights should have priority over the registration in the domain name space.
Komaitis disputes this assertion and brings to light the injustices and the trademark-oriented nature of the UDRP and ACPA. He queries what the appropriate legal source to protect registrants when not seeking to promote trademark interests is. He also delineates a legal hypothesis on their nature as well as the steps of their institutionalisation process that we need to reverse, seeking to create a just framework for the regulation of domain names. Finally he explores how the current policies contribute to the philosophy of domain names as second-class citizens.
With these questions in mind, Komaitis suggests some recommendations concerning the reconfiguration of the regulation of domain names.
Shared Hosting Articles
Shared Hosting Books