psychoanlaysis

joanna bujes joanna.bujes at sun.com
Sun Mar 30 14:56:32 PST 2003


At 09:12 PM 03/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't know why
>Doug thinks that biochemical explanations and solutions are "more
>comfortable" and less worthy than psychoanalysis and introspection.

Because, speaking from experience, psychonalysis and introspection are laborious, painful processes, compared to which taking drugs IS easy. But, I don't think Doug is being puritannical: if it hurts, it has to be better.


>Suppose that he is right, though; then I'd ask, what's wrong with
>more comfortable ways of coping with chronic illnesses, provided that
>they work as well as or even better than psychoanalysis and
>introspection? Other things being equal, I'd always prefer the
>easiest way.

Sure, the question is what does it mean to say "they work." If something works because it allows you to be a normally functioning robot of this so called society, then sure, drugs are as good as consciousness. But, if by "they work", you mean that they help you become a free and conscious being, then I highly doubt that drugs and introspection/psychonalysis are comparable. (At the same time, I know that there are a lot of bad therapists out there.)

I just think that you have to decide whether you want to feel good or be conscious. I remember Krishnamurti telling a would-be follower that if he wants to feel good, he should take drugs. It just depends what it is you want.

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list