The addict, and others in general, are influenced through a variety of factors. From the influential factors of an addiction, impressions are made in regard to who an addict may be. For this discussion I would like to acknowledge a psychological component that can allow for further discussions of compassion, empathy, and the paradoxical experience of addiction. The cognitive structures that are secured within addiction leave an individual grappling with the existence of, and estrangement from, awareness of one’s concept towards an individualized self, which I am referring to as knowledge. I am pulling at the notions of an addict’s awareness and cognitive structures that allow for one to formulate reason, and the cognitive structures of others who observe the addict grappling with the paradoxical estrangement from knowledge.

“Cognitive schemas are considered to have a key role in the development and maintenance of psychological disorders as well as in their recurrence and relapse, and so an understanding of schemas may help to explain vulnerability” (Cockram, Drummond, and Lee, 2010, p. 166).

Though my studies have not focused on the cognitive psychologies, it is appropriate to speak to the cognitive orientation, as we can set the attention upon our individual biases and our tendencies of intellectually assessing an individual’s situational and dispositional justifications. In discussing the cognitive schema’s of addiction, I am speaking from a cognitive orientation, at the moment separate from a behavioral approach, which usually “stressed the impact of early events on the later experience of psychopathology through the development of negative cognitive styles” (Cockram, Drummond, and Lee, 2010, p. 166). The behavioral aspects of addiction are of importance as well, and should be acknowledged. I appreciate how from a cognitive model we can consider the biases that both the addict and other may hold in regard to addiction.

I had written more on the topics of compassion, empathy, and paradox in regard to addiction:

Empathy and Addiction: A Quest for Connection, September 7, 2013
Torment and Addiction: The Shadow and Paradox, December 15, 2012
A Paradox: The Chaos of Truth, October 20, 2012
The Struggle Towards Compassion, July 8, 2012

To briefly define the mentioned terms, an individual’s schema consists of knowledge that has been integrated and allows for the individual’s judgments to predict outcomes. “Schemata allow us to form theories about the world which we then test out by our actions” (Hayes, 2000, p. 361). A person’s scripts, then, is the succession of behaviors that are appropriate for a given situation, which “are built up through our experience, and applied in the relevant situations as seems appropriate” (Hayes, 2000, p. 372). The individual’s prototype consists of the most symbolic pattern or characteristic, which may categorize an object or person.  As “schemata incorporate domain-specific knowledge about the world…schemata represent everything that is plausible” The prototype then is of “all the characteristic default values…prototypes are often used in the formulation of metaphors to depict what we commonly consider the outstanding salient feature of a concept” (Way, 1994, p. 117).

As the addict engaged in an addiction may experience an element of awareness, it is the ego’s desirousness within addiction that creates an estrangement from knowledge, which I refer to as dissociative states. The addiction may become a spirituality from which a supposed knowledge and cognitive structure may originate. The addiction provides a way in which the individual may attain an existence, a ritualistic relation that unifies one with knowledge of that which is greater than ones self. “Schemas can filter information, selecting certain stimuli to be attached and remembered, affecting the way inferences are drawn about that information” (Aronson, and Reilly, 2006, p. 372).

The intention here is to consider the biases that may affect reason and proclaimed truths; to have our schemas, scripts, and prototypes considered, to acknowledge the existence and reasons for our own biases that may interfere with the attempts to address what addiction may be. Might we consider how our cognitive schemata’s, prototypes, and scripts will formulate reason; to look at how our cognitive reasoning may shape the ways in which judgment, stereotypes, blame, etc. shield us from alternative perceptions? Considering the notion of scripts, for the most part we “follow scripts unconsciously—in fact, we often only become aware of them when something happens which is outside the script” (Hayes, 2000, p. 372).

Returning to the struggle of addiction, the attention for this writing is on the cognitive schema, prototypes, and scripts that may seemingly encapsulate how one may integrate, acknowledge, or conceive of an addiction. “Schemas are networks of associations used by the individual to organize and process information about the world” (Aronson, and Reilly, 2006, p. 372). The addict’s schemata struggles to assimilate, or integrate knowledge that might expose factors which indoctrinate the psychology, or behaviors and reason, the justifications are separate from the physiological responses to the addiction. Note that it is not only the addict who encounters evident difficulty to assimilate material that what would not confirm a schemata. It is a struggle we all encounter at some point.

In addition to the cognitive structures of addiction, when we discuss addiction, there is an emotional component seemingly interwoven within the cognitive assertions in how the symbolic pattern or characteristic of addiction is conceived. The cognitions of an addict and other are important factors to consider when attempting dialogue in regard to addiction as “human processing of information is often mediated by schemas (Aronson, and Reilly, 2006, p. 372). An understanding of how the addict interprets this experience of life would shed light on the seemingly forgotten relation of reason and history; how history has shaped the cognitive structures that allow for reason to exist. The actions of addiction, then, conflict with and support aspects of societies common scripts. We use the “schemata to decipher the components and elements of what is happening around us; similar to the process of deciphering a sentence by breaking it down into its grammatical and meaningful components” (Hayes, 2000, p. 362).

The focus is on the schema of addiction, for both the addict and other to potentially accommodate, or even assimilate the various cognitive underpinnings that give structure to an individuals understanding of addiction, meaning, to incorporate views of addiction that may allow for a more malleable individualistic approach to the occurrence of and to the individual who is addicted. The incorporation of information, the capacity, or ability to incorporate information illustrates the malleability of an individual’s cognitive structure. Assimilation then is the way in which “new information is absorbed into the schema without particularly changing it…accommodation, in which the schema itself has to be developed and extended because it is not adequate to cope with the new information if it does not” (Hayes, 2000, p. 360). As we continue to consider the personal, cultural, and societal reasoning that defines our individualized conceptualizations of addiction, how may we seek to understand how our reasoning was formulated? How might we integrate additional knowledge that may expand our understanding and allow for what biases that exist to become more malleable? I would appreciate any further insights you might have regarding addiction and schemas.

Reference

Aronson, Z., and Reilly, R. (2006). Personality Validity: The Role of Schemas and Motivated Reasoning. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 14(4), p. 372-380.

Cockram, D., Drummond, P., and Lee, C. (2010). Role and Treatment of Early Maladaptive Schemas in Vietnam Veterans with PTSD. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 17, p. 165-182

Hayes, N (2000). Foundations of Psychology. Thomson Learning, Bradford Raw, London.

Way, E. (1994). Knowledge representation and metaphor. London Road, Oxford: Intellect Books.

© All Rights Reserved

Erik J. Welsh, PhD
- Author of The Addiction Complex
- Article: Addiction, Schema, and Reason: Emotions and Cognitive Structures

- Twitter
- Facebook
- Google+

Find me on Linkedin

There are numerous elements that can contribute to chaos or disorder in an addict’s life. When someone becomes entangled in addiction, the consequences and effects essentially govern the psyche in such a way that the addiction becomes the identity. The identity that develops with the addiction allows for the individual to become estranged from an identity prior to the addiction. In the disorder of addiction, the individual develops a sense of truth through the belief of a found solace in addiction, which in time may solidify into entrapment. When we discuss the path of recovery, we are discussing the removal of an addict’s sense of identity. In other words, these factors of disorder may be seen as compounding elements that unfortunately nurture the individual’s beliefs, a paradoxical truth and identity. I had written more on identity, paradox and addiction:

A Theory on Identification and the Conformity of an Identity, October 27, 2012

Isolation and Fantasy: A Fragmentation of Identity, November 3, 2012

A Paradox: The Chaos of Truth, October 20, 2012

Torment and Addiction: The Shadow Paradox, December 15, 2012

The factors then are the ways in which the addiction has essentially dismantled the function of the ego. I am looking at factors as dynamic elements of influence to define the disorder in ones life, which can be characterized through the fragmented shards of discord, not dependent upon ones moral or hypothesized level of control, but as being governed by a ritualistic practice that has encapsulated the individual in illusion, which as Romanyshyn (2004) informed:

“Illusions become necessary when reality is too hard to bear” (p. 24).

The burdensome factors of addiction are what ferment and compound into what can be viewed as disorder. The disorder of addiction is comprised of various factors that solidify an experience of addiction; though the disorder is an unconscious chaos that purges emotions nestled with the shadow upon the individual’s environment. The factors I am speaking of have remained from the initial gestures that set the addiction in motion. Burdens bound to the initial gestures of addiction have allowed for an aspect of reality to be managed through dissociative states. The disorder of an addiction is the multitude of fragments, shards of pain and joy illuminated through experience. What these factors might be are the various aspects that an individual’s addiction creates. On the topic of dissociation I have spoken of dissociative states in the past regarding addiction:

Emotional Estrangement, July 1, 2012

Depth of the psyche, July 22, 2012

From Realization to Integration: Creating Meaning out of Chaos, September 2, 2012

As we observe the burden of addiction upon the individual addict, the burden of addiction has also been placed upon the society and environment as a whole. There is the blurred, permeable boundary to differentiate between what is of need and of want. There is the paradoxical influence of what is false, which has been embraced as truth, a personal truth, and a seemingly malleable theory that is an affirmed lens of perception. As the formation of disorder in the addict’s life increases, the greater the riddled myth becomes, leading one further from Self, the ever growing burden of dissociative states. Dissociation is an element that is sought, which might provide a sense of solace. Though from such a moment of dissociation, which ripples out from a found place of solace, a disorder is born, the potential of addiction is nurtured as burdens potentiate. You can read more on myth and addiction, A Warn Path: Myth and Addiction, from November 24, 2012.

“Is mental disorder merely a burden on individuals families, and societies, or is it in some way a kind of price that we pay for the sorts or demands that we make upon ourselves and our fellow citizens in the kinds of societies that we’ve constructed for ourselves; societies of freedom, choice, and responsibility. And what does the language of burden illustrate by reference to what it is not, because in relation to values of solidarity, values of care, values of mutual obligation, that burden has to be seen in another way” (Rose, 2013).

On September 10, 2013 dmfant had posted a lecture from Professor Nikolas Rose, on Synthetic Zero, titled “What is mental illness today? 5 hard questions”, which had directed me towards additional lectures that can be found on his personal site, Nikolas Rose as well. When listening to Professor Nikolas Rose I seemed to have latched on to the term burden and what might the burden upon the psyche, an intrapsychic burden, of mental disorder be, setting aside the more concrete “economic language of burden” to observe the emotional worth (Rose, 2013). As the cost of addiction upon society is seemingly boundless, the burden upon the person is one that exists upon the shoulders of the individual who is addicted and to those who exist amidst addiction.

When discussing addiction it is the influential factors that become more pronounced in the development of the individual’s life of disorder. The statement that kept my attention to this topic was how the “mental disorder has come to be seen as a burden…what the language of burden makes one think and perhaps what it makes one difficult to think” (Rose, 2013). What may be difficult to think is what remains harbored beyond our inner perils and stereotypes that encapsulate a sense or reason or understanding. How then might we look beyond the symptomology of an addict to see the individual who is caught in disorder; the symptomology of addiction as emotional burdens projected upon the environment?

References

Romanyshyn, R. (2004). Technology as Symptom and Dream. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge

Rose, N. (2013). Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxI6DmbEKQg

© All Rights Reserved

Erik J. Welsh, PhD
- Author of The Addiction Complex | Chaos, Disorder, and Burdens

- Twitter
- Facebook
- Google+

Find me on Linkedin

How is the individual to embrace an empathetic approach towards an individualized occurrence of addiction? Just as there are a variety of ways in how one might define empathy, there too is both a complex and chaotic understanding of addiction. Addiction is an emotionally charged experience for the world as a whole, which includes the individual as well. Our understanding of addiction, our emotional biases, our understanding of its existence, etc., provides a variety of interpretations that inevitably are discerned by the individual’s perceptual lens. Empathy is a term from which the meaning has broadened to a point of uncertainty. Here I am continuing a past discussion where I acknowledged empathy towards the individuals struggling with addiction from December 15, 2012 - Torment and Addiction: The Shadow Paradox. For clarity, McWilliams (1994) reminds us of the importance of empathy. When discussing addiction empathy is profound, where the other does not sympathize with, but unites in feeling with the individual. McWilliams stated:

“The term empathy has been watered down to virtual uselessness in recent times. Still there is no other existing word that gets at the quality of ‘feeling with’ rather than ‘feeling for’ that constitutes the original reason for distinguishing between empathy and sympathy…The capacity to feel emotionally what the” other is feeling (p. 12).

When I wrote A Struggle Towards Compassion - July 8, 2012, I had been thinking on how we as the individualized person might consider the individuals within the occurrence of addiction. I could not remove myself from the statement “when all poor are undeserving there is no need for public compassion” (Mooney, 2005, p. 140). I mention compassion as it allows for the consideration of another. I will write more on compassion in regard to self-compassion, yet for now I would like to briefly mention compassion for the addict who is struggling with the experience of compassion towards oneself. To be self-compassionate towards oneself is the consideration of oneself within personal suffering. It is from the difficulty that an individual found resolve in what had manifested into the governing addiction. “Self-compassion can be viewed as an emotional regulation strategy in which negative feelings are held in awareness with kindness and a sense of shared common humanity” (Wei, et. al., 2011, p. 193).

There is a great deal of torment surrounding addiction to block an empathetic approach; a blockade that within the structure of society, cultural reasoning, the constellation of complexes, and the projection of shadow content, one may toil with not only how, but what it is to empathize with an individual who is addicted. Empathy is an interpersonal understanding, referring “to the capacity to bring about in ourselves another’s affective states without actually placing ourselves in their situation” (Ravenscroft, 1998, p. 170). Though our theoretical understanding and perceptual lens for reasoning exists, empathy requires a gesture beyond such comforts. This notion of a gap between theory and experience will be discussed in a later writing after an aspect of empathy has been introduced here.

There is torment to be had for the addict and for those who have been caught within the perilous void of an addict’s life. We are all affected to a degree which may constellate complexes unknown to us, yet the intensity of the emotion may be unrelenting, a debilitating pain, a tension to cause ones sight to be biased; which is not to be judged but understood. Empathy in regard to the other, the addict, may be seen as “recognizing which of another agent's thoughts are relevant in specific contexts…the practical ability of reenacting another person's thoughts in one's own mind” (Stueber, 2013, 3.2., para 3).

“Empathy might allow me to recognize that I would have acted in the same manner as somebody else. Yet it does not epistemically sanction the claim that anybody of a particular type or anybody who is in that type of situation will act in this manner” (Stueber, 2013, 3.2., para 1).

References

Kirby, M. (1987). A formalist theatre. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lehrer, J. (2009). Unlocking the mysteries of the artistic mind. Psychology Today, 42(4), p. 72-77

Ravenscroft, I. (1998). What is it like to be someone else: Simulation and empathy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd

Rutgers, M. (2012). How to Do Things Without Theory. Administrative Theory & Praxis. 34(3), 457–461.

Stueber, K. (2013) Empathy, (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/empathy/

Wei, M., Liao, K., Ku, Y., and Shaffer, P. (2011). Attachment, Self-Compassion, Empathy, and Subjective Well-Being Among College Students and Community Adults. Journal of Personality 79(1), p. 191 - 121

© All Rights Reserved

Erik J. Welsh, PhD
- Author of The Addiction Complex | Empathy and Addiction: A Quest for Connection

- Twitter
- Facebook
- Google+

Find me on Linkedin

The Addiction Complex - Depression Spirituality and Addiction: The Search for Meaning

I came across a statement by Sorajjakool, et. al. (2008) which inspired me to look at the interplay between depression, spirituality, and addiction:

 

“Depression creates a sense of spiritual disconnection…it removes hope from its path and recreates emptiness…It reaches beyond the mind” (p. 521-522).

Here depression is described as the result of a severed connection to spirituality. Corbett (2011) stated, "our spirituality is our personal myth, our way of understanding the nature of things" (p. 20). Drawing from previous writings on identity, and conjuring forth depth psychology’s interpretive lens of holding multiple perspectives simultaneously, we may interpret depression, and more specifically, depression in addiction, as an experience of profound loss.

We are also delving into the topic of loss; a loss that can be applied to an individual’s removal of hope upon an eventual path of emptiness. For the addict there may be a loss of connection with what one interprets as spiritual. Furthermore there is a loss in regard to the dissociative states endured through addiction that deteriorates awareness, allowing for a type of confabulation where the individual grasps at the false aspects of awareness and control.

As we look at the topic of loss, we are speaking to the meaning, or lack of meaning, existent in addiction. “People are hungry for meaning, a sense of identity and community wellbeing, perhaps with greater intensity than we normally recognize” (Thornton, 2001, p. 301). I connect the topic of meaning with the presented discussion of loss. Hopelessness, then, is in association to the sense of meaninglessness, which pulls at the loss of hope, leading to a depressive state. From loss my reading kept referring me to the topic of loneliness as described by Rogers (1980) which on September 29, 2012 brought me to write The Loneliness in Addiction. The loneliness, which takes up residence in the addict’s experience, is often present in various forms throughout recovery as well.

Loss of meaning for an addict is more significantly bound to the notion of awareness as the addict has embraced a chaos that has seemingly estranged the individual, the ego, from connection. The estrangement I speak of is a separation and a false sense of awareness. The lack of awareness brings us to the material residing within the shadow, material that is destined to be projected upon the environment in order to keep it separate from us and an “other”. I have written on this topic of content being relegated to the shadow in Identified Polarities: The Chaotic Tension, on November 10, 2012 and would like to reiterate a section:

"One side will be relegated to the shadow, or personal unconscious. The conflict of what ferments within the unconscious is at times projected upon the environment to alleviate the tensions created through the very occurrence of the opposing polarity being confined to the unconscious. The great struggle for an addict is that through the engagement of an addiction the shadow is able to seep out upon the environment, just as the individual is using to continuously bury the tension within the shadow" (link, para 5).

What the concept of loss might demonstrate is the experience of finding salvation from something that in the end may represent a void. Starting with loss, for the addict to seek sobriety an individual is removing a function that seemingly allowed for existence to remain. Imagine if such a connection, a journey towards moments experienced as wholeness where to be threatened. When overcome by addiction the individual has lost control to a governing agenda, a purpose, an identity, a spiritual connection of ritual, an autonomy. The paradox is then in how addiction provides a sense of a false spiritual connection, a false sense of hope, and allows the individual to seemingly breach planes beyond that of the mind. The task at hand, then, is for the addict to rebuild those connections to self and spirituality that were severed by the addiction.

Loneliness and the search for meaning, the search for spirituality, or more simply put, connectedness, is a powerful driving force within the psyche. Rogers (1980) wrote that we need to consider: "elements of the sense of aloneness" which are an "estrangement of man [woman] from himself [herself], from his experiencing organism" (p. 165). Rogers also informed:

"In this fundamental rift, the experiencing organism sense one meaning in experience, but the conscious self clings rigidly to another...with most behavior being regulated in terms of meanings perceived in awareness, but with other meanings sensed by the physiological organism being denied and ignored because of an inability to communicate freely within oneself" (p. 165-166).

When crossing a seemingly impenetrable barrier as an addict moves towards sobriety, there is loss. Although this loss is bound within a paradox, it is nevertheless a loss of a previous state of existence when the addiction ruled the psyche. In this state there is a conflicting tension seemingly of a singularity. In loss there is the dissolved notion of meaning, and as King (2008) stated “one of the primary characteristics of an existential crisis or neurosis is a sense of meaninglessness” (p. 5).

“I hold with Jung that addiction is related to a normal human drive toward wholeness which has gone awry…What we have in Jung's theory is an account of addiction which places the motive for it at the centre of psychic functioning. This motive is the fundamental seeking for wholeness” (Naifeh, 1995, p. 134).

“The process of addiction creates an alternative reality in the addicts’ mind. Thinking becomes distorted and values get twisted” (Conyers, 2003, p. 16). The addiction is not always experienced as emptiness, but as a means of attaining wholeness and nourishment. What resides beyond the mind is a vast plane or desirable realm of dissociative states. The loss that cripples the individual who is addicted is the false sense of autonomy, a loss of autonomy, and estrangement with a personal spirituality. Carter, Hall, & Illes (2012):

Yet, “if autonomy is best thought of as self-rule, then how should we understand the loss of autonomy…The addict who suffers from a loss of autonomy is not under the control of another person, even partially; at least not necessarily…If the addiction involves a loss of autonomy it must somehow undercut the addict’s own ability to pursue her [his] goals. Addicts, it is suggested here, have compromised self-government even though they are not under the strict rule of anyone else”  (p. 142-143).

Reference

Carter, A., Hall, W., Illes, J. (2012). Addiction Neuroethics: The ethics of addiction neuroscience research and treatment. Jamestown Road, London: Elsevier Inc.

Conyers, B. (2003). Addict in the family: Stories of loss, hope, and recovery. Center City, MI: Hazelden.

Corbett, L. (2011). The sacred cauldron: Psychotherapy as a spiritual practice. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.

King, D. (2008). Personal meaning production as a component of spiritual intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.dbking.net/spiritualintelligence/inpm2008.pdf on July 9, 2013

Naifeh, S. (1995). Archetypal foundations of addiction and recovery. The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 40(2), 133-159.

Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Sorajjakool, S., Aja, V., Chilson, B., Ramírez-Johnson, J., Earll., A (2008). Disconnection, depression, and spirituality: A study of the role of spirituality and meaning in the lives of individuals with severe depression. Pastoral Psychology. 56, 521-532

Thornton, S. (2001). Wounds of dislocation and the yearning for home: Re-imagining pastoral theology. Pastoral Psychology. 49(4), 301-310

Erik J. Welsh, PhD

- The Addiction Complex Daily Digest
- Psychological Assistant at the Solstice Clinic

Follow The Addiction Complex:

- Twitter
- Facebook
- Google+

Find me on Linkedin

Also an author for Solstice Recovery Blog,
You can learn more about me at the Solstice Clinic

http://www.theaddictioncomplex.com/symbolism-and-emotion-addiction-and-perception-of-image/

Symbolism allows for an expression that at times may be taken for granted, especially since we encounter and engage with symbolism on a frequent basis. As I find myself spending time with the concept of symbolism, I am focused on how the addict can experience symbols, as well as how an individual within the throws of addiction can perceive the affect-based element of a symbol. What I am referring to is the significance of the language we use, and the deeper meanings that are evoked based on our chose of words and personal associations to them. It is the significance of what a symbol pulls from our unconscious and seemingly estranged depths that I find so intriguing. Just as our words can evoke emotional responses, a similar experience occurs through the symbolic expression of art. From the reading I encountered and dusted from the shelves when writing The Images of Emotion and Symbolic Representations, Projections, Addiction, and Other I had found myself lead to a statement presented by Jung (1966/1978):

   

a “creative process, so far as we are able to follow it at all, consists in the unconscious activation of an archetypal image, and in elaborating and shaping this image into the finished work by giving it shape, the artist translates it into the language of the present and so makes it possible for us to find our way back to the deepest springs of life. Therein lies the social significance of art: it is constantly at work educating the spirit of age, conjuring up the forms in which the age is most lacking” (p. 82).

   

What had lured me towards the thoughts of art was the idea of sensation and that of feeling. “Sensation is the psychological function that mediates the perception of a physical stimulus. It is therefore identical with perception” (Jung, 1921/1990, p. 461). And the perceptions that one may have towards what has evoked feeling may provide an attitude towards the felt sensations. Yet what attitude might we extract from the projective qualities of our experience of art? We might say that to witness art, the individual’s lens of interpretation captures an experience of projection that are thrown upon it. Here the art can lead one to “follow his[her] own yearning far from the beaten path, and to discover what it is that would meet the unconscious needs of his [her] age” (Jung, 1966/1978, p. 83). The artistic expression or metaphor or symbolism may allow for an engagement and understanding, to encourage the individual "to see the world in a new way: two unrelated objects are directly compared, giving birth to a new idea" (Lehrer, 2009, p. 77).

Jung (1921/1990) informed that sensation is “on the one hand, an element of ideation, since it conveys to the mind the perceptual image of the external object; and on the other hand, it is an element of feeling since through the perception of bodily changes it gives feeling the character of an affect...because sensation conveys bodily changes to consciousness, it is also a representative of psychological impulses. It is not identical with them, being merely a perceptive function” (p. 463).

Reference

Jung, C. (1971). The spirit in man, art, & literature. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 15). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1966)

Jung, C. (1990). Psychological types. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921)

Lehrer, J. (2009). Unlocking the Mysteries of The Artistic Mind. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200907/unlocking-the-mysteries-the-artistic-mind

Erik J. Welsh, PhD:

- Author of The Addiction Complex

- Psychological Assistant at the Solstice Clinic

Follow The Addiction Complex:

 - Twitter

- Facebook

- Google+

Find me on Linkedin

Also an author for Solstice Recovery Blog,

You can learn more about me at the Solstice Clinic