[lbo-talk] Freud (and Why Not Jung?)

[Louis Kontos]

The batting average, as you call it, of psychoanalysis is not good. But
neither is 'talking therapy' in general as successful as some on this list
would have us believe. Freud had very complex and contradictory ideas about
the aims of 'therapy', however. And institutional psychoanalysis, which
draws a sharp distinction between Freudian 'meta' psychology and
psychoanalytic therapy, appears to have served a reactionary purpose
throughout the 20th century. I wouldn't defend any of it, except to say that
the alternatives (talking therapy and whatever) are mostly worse. When you
ask 'why not Jung', I'm not sure about the point of your question. I assume
you know that Jung agreed with much of Freud and that Freud thought of him
as his most brilliant disciple. The notion of a collective unconscious is
not baseless; but it is neither empirical nor directly relevant to an
understanding of contemporary and historic events as Freudian theory. As for
shamans, I would guess they understood something about human psychology too,
maybe worth considering in some way, but don't know enough about shamanism
to comment.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Seay" <entheogens at yahoo.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Freud (and Why Not Jung?)


>
> If Freud is scientific, just because he came up with
> some theories based upon anecdotes and created a
> topography of the psyche inhabited by such creatures
> called "ID", "superego", "ego", why not go with Jung?
> He cited a number of other creatures, like the
> anima/animus, the shadow, etc, and he is every bit as
> scientific as Freud (I mean, they both had medical
> degrees, right? ;)
>
>
> Now I know I shouldnt bring up the batting average of
> Freudian analysis...because we wouldnt want to get
> dirty taking into consideration how effective a "cure"
> it is, but I bet the jungian batting average is about
> the same...and that aint very high, if memory serves
> me.
>
> I would almost compare their degree of science to
> shamanism, except for the fact that I suspect
> shamanism
> probably is much more succesful as a cure (at least
> for people in a particular shamanistic society) and
> has a far broader anecdotal knowledge of the human
> psyche than did Freud psychoanalysis.  In any case, at
> least some shamans give hallucinogenics to those who
> seek their help and that sounds like a lot more fun
> than shelling out 200 bucks an hour to a bore who
> doesnt even dance around fires, sing, and couldnt brew
> up a half-way decent cup of ayahuasca if his life
> depended on it.
>
> -Thomas
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 1/27/2004