|
|
|
[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ] I don't think the "testability" of psychoanalysis is as much the core of the conflict as is the paradigm of validation. In my view Goldberg quite rightly disassociates psychoanalysis from the paradigm of empiricism, and then (with a "significant" degree of emphasis, from a psychoanalytic view) attacks it as a "religion". I quite agree with his view of psychoanalysis as an emanation of Gnosticism -- the difference being that I myself embrace it as such. From my (probably not adequately 'homeworked', but what the hay) standpoint the question involves the primacy and pre-eminence of science vis a vis post-modern subjectivity, constructivism, etc. Per Habermas, the 'scientific' view avoids an identification of its values base by proclaiming its own value neutrality. How psychoanalysis does on measures purporting "objectivity" (as if THAT weren't a value) is largely irrelevant. It's an art. For better or worse, a deep relationship contextualised in an industrial, modern culture which itself is changing. Could you imagine objective measures concerning whether Monet or de Kooning is the better painter, or whether machines can have a sense of humor? The discourse in question turns downright mean-spirited, though, calling basic personal integrity into question. No doubt Goldberg thinks he's got proof of Freud's duplicity; yet one wonders if he sees his own projective process operating, or whether 'projection' is junked with the rest of the theory. The day there's an unquestioned assumption of what is meant by "working" in therapy/religion (res legio) is the day the human soul stops evolving -- consciously or otherwise. For now, though, do we really believe that numbers don't lie?
|
|||||||
[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ] I don't think the "testability" of psychoanalysis is as much the core of the conflict as is the paradigm of validation. In my view Goldberg quite rightly disassociates psychoanalysis from the paradigm of empiricism, and then (with a "significant" degree of emphasis, from a psychoanalytic view) attacks it as a "religion". I quite agree with his view of psychoanalysis as an emanation of Gnosticism -- the difference being that I myself embrace it as such. From my (probably not adequately 'homeworked', but what the hay) standpoint the question involves the primacy and pre-eminence of science vis a vis post-modern subjectivity, constructivism, etc. Per Habermas, the 'scientific' view avoids an identification of its values base by proclaiming its own value neutrality. How psychoanalysis does on measures purporting "objectivity" (as if THAT weren't a value) is largely irrelevant. It's an art. For better or worse, a deep relationship contextualised in an industrial, modern culture which itself is changing. Could you imagine objective measures concerning whether Monet or de Kooning is the better painter, or whether machines can have a sense of humor? The discourse in question turns downright mean-spirited, though, calling basic personal integrity into question. No doubt Goldberg thinks he's got proof of Freud's duplicity; yet one wonders if he sees his own projective process operating, or whether 'projection' is junked with the rest of the theory. The day there's an unquestioned assumption of what is meant by "working" in therapy/religion (res legio) is the day the human soul stops evolving -- consciously or otherwise. For now, though, do we really believe that numbers don't lie?
|
|||||||
