Downtown Boulder from Flagstaff

A Beautiful Day in Boulder 2

On Flagstaff Mountain (looking down on CU Campus “red roofed bldgs”)

A Beautiful Day in Boulder

On Flagstaff

CU Campus from Lower Flagstaff

About Me

I live, write, consult, and practice medicine and psychotherapy on a limited basis in Boulder, Colorado.

Professionally, I am:

• a board-certified neurologist
• psychoanalyst (Jungian analyst) trained in Switzerland
• fellowship-trained psychopharmacologist
• perform psychological and neuropsychological testing.

I act as:

• a consultant in the neurological and emotional effects of brain injury and damage
• assess the medical necessity and access of care issues for novel treatments and medical devices in the fields of neurology and psychiatry
• access quality of care issues in hospital and medical practice settings.

I train the following in Jungian Analysis in conjunction with their participation in an accredited training program:

• psychology professionals (MA, PhD)
• medical doctors .

If you wish to consider having me see you as a patient; serve as training Analyst or provide clinical case supervision as a Jungian analyst, or have need of any of other of my services, please contact me @:

1. Phone: 303-586-1556
2. Email: rwiner@neurocareusa.com
3. Twitter: @robertwinermd

To view my professional credentials, click on the link below:

View Robert Winer, M.D.’s professional credentials on his LinkedIn profile

View Robert Winer, M.D.’s Academic Research @ Academia.edu

Winer Foundation: The Winer Family operates a 501 C-3 Public Charity called the Winer Foundation.We do humanitarian work principally in Ethiopia and Israel, as well as educational and scientific work throughout the world. We also connect doctors for visiting professorships and residency rotations and senior medical students for clerkships at Addis Ababa School of Medicine Hospital in Ethiopia.Our website is:

www.winerfoundation.org

If you are interested in more information about our work, contact us at:

1. Phone: 215-365-3350
2. Email: Info@winerfoundation.org

Comments on “Jung’s Children’s Dream Seminar” of 1938-1939

Below I give my comments on two excerpts from Jung’s “Psychological Interpretation of Children’s Dreams.” Notes on Lectures given by Prof. Dr. C.G. Jung at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich, Autumn and Winter, 1938-39.

“The dream is, as you know, a natural phenomenon. It arises from no conscious effort. It cannot be explained by a psychology which is based on consciousness only. It … is quite independent of the will or desire, or of the intentions of aims of the human ego. It is an unintentional happening, like all the events in nature. … The difficulty lies in understanding this natural phenomenon” (p. 2).

RIW: This first sentence is very important for us to consider. What does Jung mean when he calls a dream a “natural phenomenon”? Certainly, a dream may be considered like other bodily functions, perhaps even as the “output” of one of its organs. For just as the heart, being the “pump” of the circulatory system, has its output of blood, one of the mind’s “outputs” is the dream. I hold that underneath conscious activity, the dream is continuously going on. But it is only when the force of consciousness is reduced, such as during sleep (when REM and its associated brain wave activity), that we become aware of dream and have the possibility to later remember his autonomously produced psychic activity. Dreams clearly relate to a natural functioning functioning. But what is / are its natural functions? The dream shows the imaginal matrix from which consciousness arises, the visual language that forms the creative and emotive forces that drive behavior as well as the counterpoint to the contents of consciousness.

“Whatever we have to say about [dreams] must be acknowledged as our own interpretation. … We are confronted by the difficult task of translating natural processes into psychical language. … Whatever meaning one ascribes to [dream] events, [it] must always remain a human assumption, and nevertheless, [one should] attempt to comprehend the underlying primary facts. One is never absolutely certain whether one is reaching this goal, but the uncertainty is partially overcome [as one] … observes … [the dream] offers an intelligent solution” (p. 2).

RIW: Underlying Jung’s words are his practice to first allow oneself to be moved by the imagery of our dreams. To “feel” a dream first gives back to its contents some of the original intensity they possessed while unconscious. One then amplifies the dream’s motifs using both personal associations and parallel material from humankind’s common experience. Lastly, comes interpretation, our own sense of what the dream means to us. An intelligent and sound scientific approach to the dream uses hypothesis, meaning that one’s idea of a dream’s meaning should always be kept flexible, waiting for the next alternative way of understanding it. This is the healthy “modicum of doubt” that Jung always taught his students to hold.

Draft A: Reductive Methods in Medical Therapy and Psychotherapy

Here’s a few thoughts for consideration: I understand practitioners of “Reductive Methods in Therapy or Psychotherapy”as being those who predominantly view the illness or symptoms as a “problems.” This statement is not intended to denigrate such an approach. Yet if such a practice is the exclusive clinical means by which a patient encounter proceeds, most of the time there exists an underlying ethos that is either conscious or unconscious to the practitioner. Psychologically, this would mean that their highest value is that within the patient something exists that must be eliminated, destroyed, or somehow “reduced.”

Unfortunately, if this attitude is only consciously-held, the unconscious factors may predominate and drive behavior that may not be in the patient’s best interests, either medically, psychologically, or financially. My suggestion here is that it must be held in mind that these are practitioners, who though sincerely “believing” that treatment must be in service of or be based upon a sincere attempt at reducing or alleviating suffering, the patient or consumer of their care must be on guard that the treatment may be worse to them than the condition.

While reductive means have proven their worth in medicine, psychiatry, and psychology, when applied without conscious awareness or discernment of its need in the particular case at hand, I raise the question as to whether, particularly in the case of psychiatric and psychological care, whether a long term exists. Two examples follow:

1. Those practitioners who call themselves “integrative” or “wholistic.” These are practitioners who add to their treatment, CAM (complementary and alternative medicine). Unfortunately, despite their best intentions, CAM treatments cannot be shown to offer benefit beyond the placebo effect. While this may be helpful to patient and in fact, from the patient’s standpoint, the treatment may have even been more helpful than any previous treatment they have experienced. Yet, in the long run, these treatments drive up the cost of health care, do not prolong longevity, nor do they improve the ultimate outcome of the diseases or conditions they hope to treat.

2. Those practitioners who call themselves “evidence-based.” These are practitioners who base their treatment — which by the present standard of definition must be medications, surgery, or physical therapy — solely upon statistical studies, ones that show their recommended treatment as exceeding the results of placebo. While such practices have moved medical and psychiatric care out of the Dark Ages, unfortunately, despite even the best intentions, “evidence-based” treatments may not be best in a particular case. I suggest that such a “reductive approach” will fail if a patient’s condition as a whoe is more unique than average. I conceive of such patients as those that require a treatment that lay outside the “bell-shaped” curve of normality, of what is usual and customary. In my experience, this most frequently occurs in patients with multiple co-existing conditions. That is, they have some conditions which will respond to statistically proven therapies, but as a whole they do not benefit because the unsuccessfully treated condition(s) undermine their health in its totality. In this case, though they receive treatment that are statistically proven to help in single conditions, because they suffer from multiple conditions they receive less real-life benefit than if they were treated more individually.