I've read Crews; I know Crews. His stuff on recovered memory was very good, but it's hardly a critique of Freud's work. So far as I know, Crews never actually experienced therapy, other than primal scream therapy, which is not Freudian. I'm not being funny. That's a fact, as told by a mutual friend.
Joanna
Carrol Cox wrote:
>joanna wrote:
>
>
>>Also interesting that they completely misunderstand what the "therapy"
>>is about. It's not about unearthing secrets. There are no secrets.
>>
>>
>
>This is irrelevant. We are talking about the claims made by
>psychoanalysis about the general nature of human thought and feeling,
>not about what happens in an individual analysis on a particular day.
>Freud talks about a non-existent object he calls "The It." He sees it as
>operating in all humans.
>
>But in any case, read Crews. I don't make arguments about psychiatry any
>more than I make arguments about nuclear physics or neurology. The
>rejection of Freud is nearly as universal amongst neuroscientists
>(psychologists, neurologists, psychiatrists) as is the rejection of
>Newton's theory of gravity since Einstein published his. If someone on
>this list claimed that Newton told us more about gravity than Einstein,
>I would scoff at it but not myself argue against it.
>
>That is what is wrong with Doug's caterwauling on femecon-l about the
>"quality" of the anti-Freudian arguments. My anti-Freudian arguments are
>in the same basket as my anti-creationist arguments. They aren't mine;
>I'm merely citing established opinion among those who have a basis for
>having an opinion.
>
>Carrol
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050504/6eb5f5f0/attachment.htm>