Simon
> From: "Carl Remick" <carlremick at hotmail.com>
> >From: "Michael Dawson -PSU" <mdawson at pdx.edu>
> >
> > > What does Freud have to do with "scientific
> knowlege"?
> > >
> > > Carl
> >
> >1. As Jared Diamond notes, he shattered the idea
> that conscious thought was
> >all there is to the human psyche.
>
> Izzat so? Here's a bit more of that Todd Dufresne
> LA Times article I cited
> initially:
>
> "Then there is the theory of the unconscious, which
> has also seen better
> days. We all agree that Freud did not 'discover' the
> unconscious, and are
> sophisticated enough to see that it has a history
> that long predates him: as
> the devil that possessed Christians; as the
> mesmerism and hypnosis that
> invoked the split, double and multiple personalities
> of the 18th and 19th
> centuries; and as the theme of 'doubling' that
> informed much Victorian
> literature and, today, still informs the dumbest
> plot lines in Hollywood and
> in psychotherapy.
>
> "Now connect the dots. In each iteration of the
> unconscious, some anointed
> medium — priest, quack or analyst — claims special
> access to the darkest,
> scariest reaches of our minds. For a certain price,
> he or she can cure you
> of this demon...."
>
>
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dufresne18feb18,1,5672071.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions>
>
> And no, there's nothing "scientific" about Freud's
> own particular
> wooly-minded notions of the unconscious. He was
> truly a charlatan's
> charlatan.
>
> Carl
>
>
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html