This was a great read and drew some parallels to how I've been thinking about psychological defences. They are attempts ultimately to defend the integrity of the self structure from that which can't yet me integrated, metabolised or adapted around - but the psychological defences are organised around a more primitive defence and shaped by our experiences. The deeper problem I think is we humans aren't defending our literally bodily integrity, we're defending ideas about who we think we are/want to be/need not to be. We are perhaps the only organism that has created such an extensive abstract, symbolic and complex 'ego' that must be defended at all costs. The degree of rigidity of the self structure itself, developed through various factors that are not inhernet to the individual (i.e. not something chosen), seems to me to be the basis by which defences can go from adaptive to maladaptive, regardless of the way in which they were shaped.
This was a great read and drew some parallels to how I've been thinking about psychological defences. They are attempts ultimately to defend the integrity of the self structure from that which can't yet me integrated, metabolised or adapted around - but the psychological defences are organised around a more primitive defence and shaped by our experiences. The deeper problem I think is we humans aren't defending our literally bodily integrity, we're defending ideas about who we think we are/want to be/need not to be. We are perhaps the only organism that has created such an extensive abstract, symbolic and complex 'ego' that must be defended at all costs. The degree of rigidity of the self structure itself, developed through various factors that are not inhernet to the individual (i.e. not something chosen), seems to me to be the basis by which defences can go from adaptive to maladaptive, regardless of the way in which they were shaped.
Great to hear from you, Liam. Thanks for your comment. I think you're onto something ... inquiring into "self structure"