|
|
|
[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ] At 15:16 01/05/1996 +0000, Adrian Ortiz wrote: De ahi una afirmacion absoluta: no hay posibilidad de operar en psicoanalisis desde una posicion creyente ni en el lugar del analista ni en el lugar del analisante. Y no me vengan con ..."tengo un paciente religioso"! Translation : "Thence an absolute statement : there is no possibility whatsoever to operate in psychoanalysis from the stance of a [religious] believer, neither in the analyst nor in the analysand s place. And don t tell me, I have a religious patient !". I can t quite understand this, above all if one has read the correspondence exchanged between Freud and O. Pfister. In a letter, Freud comments :
I don t see the unattainable distance meant in the comment above. And one could think Freud s expressions could be understood as a compliment to Pfister, but in a letter to Jung, he emphasizes :
Why should Freud tell Jung he thought that in some respects religious therapists worked under more favourable conditions than non-religious therapists, if he did not believe it ? I don t understand that. But there is more. Smiley Blanton, a famous American psychiatrist, was Freud s patient for years. In addition to his psychiatric profession, he was a pastor, and together with the renowned Norman Vincent Peale theologician and elder from the First Presbyterian Church of New York he organized an assistance service in that Church s facilities. When reading Blanton s autobiography, one learns about the good relationship he had not only with Freud, but with Anna Freud. He did not have to give up any of his [religious] ideas because of his therapy, and like Pfister, he was one of Freud s religious patients. Moreover, Freud always showed great interest in the results reached by those "religious therapists" (as he called them) from New York. I think each and every one of us has a right to their own ideas and to maintain them in argument. I think that is democratic thinking. What we are not entitled to is to make those who have already passed away say what they never said, or what they said in a manifestly different sense, just so it coincides with our own views. I repeat Paul Hamburg s expressions : 1. "ad hominem." Perhaps this is exactly the point. Psychoanalysis is about the person. Rather than trying to truncate psychoanalysis and reify it into just some variant of science---today's cult of choice---it makes much better sense to maintain that tense, uncomfortable and paradoxical relationship between Freud's uncanny decentering of human nature (naming the unconscious) and a discipline of thought regarding the meaning of human passion, fantasy and action. Neither science nor myth. (We are) some of both. (...) If it's either ad hominem or ad absurdum---I'll stay on the side of the person. Prof. Daniel Gomez Dupertuis
|
|||||||
[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ] At 15:16 01/05/1996 +0000, Adrian Ortiz wrote: De ahi una afirmacion absoluta: no hay posibilidad de operar en psicoanalisis desde una posicion creyente ni en el lugar del analista ni en el lugar del analisante. Y no me vengan con ..."tengo un paciente religioso"! Translation : "Thence an absolute statement : there is no possibility whatsoever to operate in psychoanalysis from the stance of a [religious] believer, neither in the analyst nor in the analysand s place. And don t tell me, I have a religious patient !". I can t quite understand this, above all if one has read the correspondence exchanged between Freud and O. Pfister. In a letter, Freud comments :
I don t see the unattainable distance meant in the comment above. And one could think Freud s expressions could be understood as a compliment to Pfister, but in a letter to Jung, he emphasizes :
Why should Freud tell Jung he thought that in some respects religious therapists worked under more favourable conditions than non-religious therapists, if he did not believe it ? I don t understand that. But there is more. Smiley Blanton, a famous American psychiatrist, was Freud s patient for years. In addition to his psychiatric profession, he was a pastor, and together with the renowned Norman Vincent Peale theologician and elder from the First Presbyterian Church of New York he organized an assistance service in that Church s facilities. When reading Blanton s autobiography, one learns about the good relationship he had not only with Freud, but with Anna Freud. He did not have to give up any of his [religious] ideas because of his therapy, and like Pfister, he was one of Freud s religious patients. Moreover, Freud always showed great interest in the results reached by those "religious therapists" (as he called them) from New York. I think each and every one of us has a right to their own ideas and to maintain them in argument. I think that is democratic thinking. What we are not entitled to is to make those who have already passed away say what they never said, or what they said in a manifestly different sense, just so it coincides with our own views. I repeat Paul Hamburg s expressions : 1. "ad hominem." Perhaps this is exactly the point. Psychoanalysis is about the person. Rather than trying to truncate psychoanalysis and reify it into just some variant of science---today's cult of choice---it makes much better sense to maintain that tense, uncomfortable and paradoxical relationship between Freud's uncanny decentering of human nature (naming the unconscious) and a discipline of thought regarding the meaning of human passion, fantasy and action. Neither science nor myth. (We are) some of both. (...) If it's either ad hominem or ad absurdum---I'll stay on the side of the person. Prof. Daniel Gomez Dupertuis
|
|||||||
