[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ]

In Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:24:03 -0500, Dr Donald K. Routh wrote

"Dear Mr. Pitchford,
... Last year was the centenary of Freud's original psychoanalytic book (with Breuer) on hysteria, and perhaps we will at last be able to get some historical perspective on his work. As a lapsed Baptist, I am sometimes find that discussing Freud with the psychoanalytic faithful is like discussing Biblical scripture with acquaintances in the Bible Belt".

"Lapsed Baptist","faithful",Biblical scripture","Bible Belt",(then "excommunicate") What a words! But I think it's important to centralize the problem: why is so different the religious, scientific and psychoanalytical camps?. For example: the faith, beliefs (specially in God) is absolutely necessary in religion, it's indifferent in science and it is absolutely contradictory with psychoanalytical praxis.In the ADN investigations is indifferent the beliefs of investigator. But it is impossible to imagine a faithful-psychoanalyst! The relation between religious men and the biblical scripture is absolutely different than the relation between maths and mathematical text and it is too in the psychoanalyst case in relation to Freud's texts. It's possible to psychoanalysts take it in a religious way but in this case obviously it isn't the Freud's goal. The subject necessarily have to be affected in his beliefs by his own analysis. It is impossible to operate in religious way in psychoanalysis. But in scientific way, this is indifferent. The science act without subject, more with forclusion of subject.

Another fruitful way is make questions like:is it the difference between the religious conception of the interpretation ,scripture, letter,etc and the psychoanalytical conception absolutely clear?

Dr Donald Routh said:"In my opinion, the main negative contribution of Freud has nothing to do with the content of his writings; it is the authoritarian tradition he helped to establish in the psychoanalytic movement, requiring that people such as Jung, Adler, Rank, and others be excommunicated for their ideas".

"Excommunicated". We are still in the religious camp of meanings!. But Freud's perspective was very different than the Jungian or Adlerian's perspective and if it hasn't anything to do together why don't call psychoanalysis to one and find another name for the others?

" On the positive side, I admire most the work of some Freudians who felt free to treat the Master's words as something other than holy write. Notable examples would be Bowlby and Erikson. For each of these, other investigators (such as Mary Ainsworth and James Marcia, respectively) were able to translate the concepts into empirical research procedures that were fruitful."

This is another important point: the intention of translation psychoanalytical point of view to an empirical research supposes the possibility to put it in accordance, t.i. with the scientific method. I believe it is impossible.A privilegiate perspective is the differents ways to approach to the phenomenon of writing letter and interpretation. It is absolutely different the mathematical perspective of writing for example from the biblical's or psychoanalytical conception of it.

Regards.
Adrian Ortiz
Bs. As.,27/4/1996.

El miercoles 24 de abril de 1996 el Dr. Ronald K.Routh "drouth@umiami.ir.miami.edu" escribia en la lista psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk:

"Dear Mr. Pitchford,
... Last year was the centenary of Freud's original psychoanalytic book (with Breuer) on hysteria, and perhaps we will at last be able to get some historical perspective on his work. As a lapsed Baptist, I am sometimes find that discussing Freud with the psychoanalytic faithful is like discussing Biblical scripture with acquaintances in the Bible Belt".

"Lapsed Baptist","faithfull",Biblical scripture","Bible Belt",(then "excommunicate") Que palabras! Pero pienso que sirven para centralizar el problema: por que son tan diferentes los campos religiosos, cientifico y psicoanalitico? Por ejemplo: la fe, las creencias (especialmente en Dios) son absolutamente necesarias para el acto religioso, indiferentes para el cientifico y absolutamente contradictorias con el acto analitico. En las investigaciones sobre el ADN es indiferente si el cientifico tiene creencias o no. Pero es imposible imaginar un analista creyente. Porque suponemos que la efectuacion del propio analisis implica en primer lugar una puesta en cuestion de la posicion de creyente, de lo que sea.

Esta diferencia tambie se manifiesta en la relacion entre el creyente y el texto biblico, entre el matematico y el texto matematico y el psicoanalista y el texto freudiano. Es posible siempre que el psicoanalista tome religiosamente los textos de Freud o Lacan pero obviamente no es el fin al que apuntaba Freud o Lacan o el psicoanalisis. Y es que en este ultimo campo el sujeto y su relacion a la creencia, a la conviccion, religiosa, politica, raciales,cultural ,etc, tienen que ser necesaria y profundamente puestas en cuestion. Es imposible operar en psicoanalisis con un sentido religioso. Por eso el psicoanalisis no consiste en una Weltanschuung, una vision del mundo.En cambio a la ciencia le es indiferente las creencias del sujeto, ya que alli no hay sujeto,opera a partir de la forclusion del mismo.

Dr Donald Routh said:"In my opinion, the main negative contribution of Freud has nothing to do with the content of his writings; it is the authoritarian tradition he helped to establish in the psychoanalytic movement, requiring that people such as Jung, Adler, Rank, and others be excommunicated for their ideas".

"Excomunion" Estamos aun en el campo de significaciones de lo religioso. En verdad la perspectiva freudiana era muy diferente que la perspectiva jungiana o adleriana entonces si no tenian nada que ver ?por que no nombrar a una psicoanalisis y a la otra ponerle otro nombre o tal vez fundar otra praxis y otra teoria? Eso no era efecto de una excomunion sino efecto del desarrollo de la particularidad de cada uno de los miembros del primitivo grupo psicoanalitico.

" On the positive side, I admire most the work of some Freudians who felt free to treat the Master's words as something other than holy write. Notable examples would be Bowlby and Erikson. For each of these, other investigators (such as Mary Ainsworth and James Marcia, respectively) were able to translate the concepts into empirical research procedures that were fruitful."

Este es otro punto importante: la intencion de efectuar una transcripcion del psicoanalisis al punto de vista de la investigacion empirica supone la posibilidad de poder poner en acuerdo a aquel con el punto de vista del metodo cientifico Y esto creo que es imposible. Una de las perspectivas privilegiadas para ver esta diferencia (demas de la enunciada antes respecto a que el psicoanalisis opera a partir de un sujeto que la ciencia forcluye por definicion de su metodo para abordar su real)la constituye la forma de aproximarse a la escritura, la letra y la interpretacion. Es absolutamente diferente la perspectiva matematica respecto a la escritura y la letra que la perspectiva biblica o talmudica o la concepcion psicoanalitica al respecto.

Saludos.

Adrian Ortiz
Bs.As.,27/4/96.

human-nature.com © Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young - Last updated: 28 May, 2005 02:29 PM

[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ]

In Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:24:03 -0500, Dr Donald K. Routh wrote

"Dear Mr. Pitchford,
... Last year was the centenary of Freud's original psychoanalytic book (with Breuer) on hysteria, and perhaps we will at last be able to get some historical perspective on his work. As a lapsed Baptist, I am sometimes find that discussing Freud with the psychoanalytic faithful is like discussing Biblical scripture with acquaintances in the Bible Belt".

"Lapsed Baptist","faithful",Biblical scripture","Bible Belt",(then "excommunicate") What a words! But I think it's important to centralize the problem: why is so different the religious, scientific and psychoanalytical camps?. For example: the faith, beliefs (specially in God) is absolutely necessary in religion, it's indifferent in science and it is absolutely contradictory with psychoanalytical praxis.In the ADN investigations is indifferent the beliefs of investigator. But it is impossible to imagine a faithful-psychoanalyst! The relation between religious men and the biblical scripture is absolutely different than the relation between maths and mathematical text and it is too in the psychoanalyst case in relation to Freud's texts. It's possible to psychoanalysts take it in a religious way but in this case obviously it isn't the Freud's goal. The subject necessarily have to be affected in his beliefs by his own analysis. It is impossible to operate in religious way in psychoanalysis. But in scientific way, this is indifferent. The science act without subject, more with forclusion of subject.

Another fruitful way is make questions like:is it the difference between the religious conception of the interpretation ,scripture, letter,etc and the psychoanalytical conception absolutely clear?

Dr Donald Routh said:"In my opinion, the main negative contribution of Freud has nothing to do with the content of his writings; it is the authoritarian tradition he helped to establish in the psychoanalytic movement, requiring that people such as Jung, Adler, Rank, and others be excommunicated for their ideas".

"Excommunicated". We are still in the religious camp of meanings!. But Freud's perspective was very different than the Jungian or Adlerian's perspective and if it hasn't anything to do together why don't call psychoanalysis to one and find another name for the others?

" On the positive side, I admire most the work of some Freudians who felt free to treat the Master's words as something other than holy write. Notable examples would be Bowlby and Erikson. For each of these, other investigators (such as Mary Ainsworth and James Marcia, respectively) were able to translate the concepts into empirical research procedures that were fruitful."

This is another important point: the intention of translation psychoanalytical point of view to an empirical research supposes the possibility to put it in accordance, t.i. with the scientific method. I believe it is impossible.A privilegiate perspective is the differents ways to approach to the phenomenon of writing letter and interpretation. It is absolutely different the mathematical perspective of writing for example from the biblical's or psychoanalytical conception of it.

Regards.
Adrian Ortiz
Bs. As.,27/4/1996.

El miercoles 24 de abril de 1996 el Dr. Ronald K.Routh "drouth@umiami.ir.miami.edu" escribia en la lista psychoanalytic-studies@sheffield.ac.uk:

"Dear Mr. Pitchford,
... Last year was the centenary of Freud's original psychoanalytic book (with Breuer) on hysteria, and perhaps we will at last be able to get some historical perspective on his work. As a lapsed Baptist, I am sometimes find that discussing Freud with the psychoanalytic faithful is like discussing Biblical scripture with acquaintances in the Bible Belt".

"Lapsed Baptist","faithfull",Biblical scripture","Bible Belt",(then "excommunicate") Que palabras! Pero pienso que sirven para centralizar el problema: por que son tan diferentes los campos religiosos, cientifico y psicoanalitico? Por ejemplo: la fe, las creencias (especialmente en Dios) son absolutamente necesarias para el acto religioso, indiferentes para el cientifico y absolutamente contradictorias con el acto analitico. En las investigaciones sobre el ADN es indiferente si el cientifico tiene creencias o no. Pero es imposible imaginar un analista creyente. Porque suponemos que la efectuacion del propio analisis implica en primer lugar una puesta en cuestion de la posicion de creyente, de lo que sea.

Esta diferencia tambie se manifiesta en la relacion entre el creyente y el texto biblico, entre el matematico y el texto matematico y el psicoanalista y el texto freudiano. Es posible siempre que el psicoanalista tome religiosamente los textos de Freud o Lacan pero obviamente no es el fin al que apuntaba Freud o Lacan o el psicoanalisis. Y es que en este ultimo campo el sujeto y su relacion a la creencia, a la conviccion, religiosa, politica, raciales,cultural ,etc, tienen que ser necesaria y profundamente puestas en cuestion. Es imposible operar en psicoanalisis con un sentido religioso. Por eso el psicoanalisis no consiste en una Weltanschuung, una vision del mundo.En cambio a la ciencia le es indiferente las creencias del sujeto, ya que alli no hay sujeto,opera a partir de la forclusion del mismo.

Dr Donald Routh said:"In my opinion, the main negative contribution of Freud has nothing to do with the content of his writings; it is the authoritarian tradition he helped to establish in the psychoanalytic movement, requiring that people such as Jung, Adler, Rank, and others be excommunicated for their ideas".

"Excomunion" Estamos aun en el campo de significaciones de lo religioso. En verdad la perspectiva freudiana era muy diferente que la perspectiva jungiana o adleriana entonces si no tenian nada que ver ?por que no nombrar a una psicoanalisis y a la otra ponerle otro nombre o tal vez fundar otra praxis y otra teoria? Eso no era efecto de una excomunion sino efecto del desarrollo de la particularidad de cada uno de los miembros del primitivo grupo psicoanalitico.

" On the positive side, I admire most the work of some Freudians who felt free to treat the Master's words as something other than holy write. Notable examples would be Bowlby and Erikson. For each of these, other investigators (such as Mary Ainsworth and James Marcia, respectively) were able to translate the concepts into empirical research procedures that were fruitful."

Este es otro punto importante: la intencion de efectuar una transcripcion del psicoanalisis al punto de vista de la investigacion empirica supone la posibilidad de poder poner en acuerdo a aquel con el punto de vista del metodo cientifico Y esto creo que es imposible. Una de las perspectivas privilegiadas para ver esta diferencia (demas de la enunciada antes respecto a que el psicoanalisis opera a partir de un sujeto que la ciencia forcluye por definicion de su metodo para abordar su real)la constituye la forma de aproximarse a la escritura, la letra y la interpretacion. Es absolutamente diferente la perspectiva matematica respecto a la escritura y la letra que la perspectiva biblica o talmudica o la concepcion psicoanalitica al respecto.

Saludos.

Adrian Ortiz
Bs.As.,27/4/96.

human-nature.com © Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young - Last updated: 28 May, 2005 02:29 PM