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

Ivan,
I'd like to comment some points of your message.

On 9 April at 19:01, you wrote:
> >>From Dr Ivan Goldberg
> New York

> Professor Tallis' attacks Freud as a scientist and as a person. His
> attacks are probably accurate. It is hard to see how anyone with the
> slightest respect for the scientific method would not agree that Freud's
> speculations are not scientific hypotheses. They are speculations,
> based on minimal evidence, that try to explain certain aspects of human
> behavior. In most cases they are not capable of being disproven by
> experimentation, so cannot be considered scientific hypotheses. Yet
> models are not true or false . . . they are useful or not useful. The

My conclusion here is a bit different. I agree they are not scientific hypotheses. The consequence is that *they can be true or false* but they are irrefutable, they cannot be disproven. The point is that Freud was a scientist to begin with, and he was inventing a praxis that was not a science (neither exact nor human science), and he was trying to transmit that praxis to scientists. I don't think he was aware that he was inventing something not being a science. In the course of a psychoanalysis, a patient has not to prove what he says. Eventually by saying things to his analyst, he won't need to express his symptoms in the same way. Here we come to what you call the usefulness. I think that it is only the patient who can decide whether it is useful or not. As long as he proceeds it has for him some --- eventually hidden --- usefulness. The more accurate usefulness being the increase of jouissance in language.

> therapy, psychoanalysis, that is based on the model does not seem to be
> particularly useful.

Here you put together in the same sentence therapy and psychoanalysis. This seems impossible to me because they don't cover the same discourse. I won't emphasize the differences of these 2 concepts here, but I just note that, in the word psychoanalysis, 'therapy' is not mentioned. Psychoanalysis *is not a treatment of a mental disorder*. It is a way a responsible person can try to analyze why his life is going so bad. Why it does not work in his body, with his boss, his wife/her husband, his children, family etc. What is funny is that when one analyses that, eventually his symptoms will not be so insisting!

> About 30 years ago the American Psychoanalytic Association gathered some
> data on the outcome of psychoanalytic therapy as conducted by its

As I mentioned above I disagree with the term psychoanalytic therapy.

>members. The unpublished copies of the report became known as the
> "Rainbow Report" as each chapter was duplicated on different colored
> paper. The report was never published because the results were so poor
> that it was decided that to publish it would present psychoanalysis in a
> bad light. > > In any case, psychoanalysis is essentially dead as a therapy. Despite

Hopefully it is dead --- at last --- as a therapy. But when one is not too masochist, many symptoms vanish during the process of psychoanalysis.

> the official "party-line" most of the people in 4 or 5 times a week
> analysis are candidates at psychoanalytic institutes, not individuals
> with serious psychiatric disorders. While some of the more speculative
> sorts of psychoanalysis (Lacan) are popular with critics of society, they
> seem to have little to offer those who care for people with psychiatric
> disorders.

For the reasons I mentioned above I agree with that. Someone who is ill, who suffers from mental disorders need to go through a treatment. They are medicines and psychotherapy for instance. When someone is ill, he is not responsible for his acts. It is legitimate he tries to find a doctor or a psychotherapist. But someday, eventually, when he is not so full with anguish, he can think of him being responsible for his disorders. He can eventually come into the psychoanalytic process.

> > I suspect that 100 years from now both Freud and Marx will be looked
> upon as interesting cranks, whose popularity were fleeting, and who
> added little to the history of ideas.

Of course I can't follow you there, but this is another story.

Best regards

Jacques

Dr. Jacques B. Siboni
8 pass. Charles Albert F75018 Paris, France
Tel & Fax : (33 1) 42 28 76 78

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 ]

Ivan,
I'd like to comment some points of your message.

On 9 April at 19:01, you wrote:
> >>From Dr Ivan Goldberg
> New York

> Professor Tallis' attacks Freud as a scientist and as a person. His
> attacks are probably accurate. It is hard to see how anyone with the
> slightest respect for the scientific method would not agree that Freud's
> speculations are not scientific hypotheses. They are speculations,
> based on minimal evidence, that try to explain certain aspects of human
> behavior. In most cases they are not capable of being disproven by
> experimentation, so cannot be considered scientific hypotheses. Yet
> models are not true or false . . . they are useful or not useful. The

My conclusion here is a bit different. I agree they are not scientific hypotheses. The consequence is that *they can be true or false* but they are irrefutable, they cannot be disproven. The point is that Freud was a scientist to begin with, and he was inventing a praxis that was not a science (neither exact nor human science), and he was trying to transmit that praxis to scientists. I don't think he was aware that he was inventing something not being a science. In the course of a psychoanalysis, a patient has not to prove what he says. Eventually by saying things to his analyst, he won't need to express his symptoms in the same way. Here we come to what you call the usefulness. I think that it is only the patient who can decide whether it is useful or not. As long as he proceeds it has for him some --- eventually hidden --- usefulness. The more accurate usefulness being the increase of jouissance in language.

> therapy, psychoanalysis, that is based on the model does not seem to be
> particularly useful.

Here you put together in the same sentence therapy and psychoanalysis. This seems impossible to me because they don't cover the same discourse. I won't emphasize the differences of these 2 concepts here, but I just note that, in the word psychoanalysis, 'therapy' is not mentioned. Psychoanalysis *is not a treatment of a mental disorder*. It is a way a responsible person can try to analyze why his life is going so bad. Why it does not work in his body, with his boss, his wife/her husband, his children, family etc. What is funny is that when one analyses that, eventually his symptoms will not be so insisting!

> About 30 years ago the American Psychoanalytic Association gathered some
> data on the outcome of psychoanalytic therapy as conducted by its

As I mentioned above I disagree with the term psychoanalytic therapy.

>members. The unpublished copies of the report became known as the
> "Rainbow Report" as each chapter was duplicated on different colored
> paper. The report was never published because the results were so poor
> that it was decided that to publish it would present psychoanalysis in a
> bad light. > > In any case, psychoanalysis is essentially dead as a therapy. Despite

Hopefully it is dead --- at last --- as a therapy. But when one is not too masochist, many symptoms vanish during the process of psychoanalysis.

> the official "party-line" most of the people in 4 or 5 times a week
> analysis are candidates at psychoanalytic institutes, not individuals
> with serious psychiatric disorders. While some of the more speculative
> sorts of psychoanalysis (Lacan) are popular with critics of society, they
> seem to have little to offer those who care for people with psychiatric
> disorders.

For the reasons I mentioned above I agree with that. Someone who is ill, who suffers from mental disorders need to go through a treatment. They are medicines and psychotherapy for instance. When someone is ill, he is not responsible for his acts. It is legitimate he tries to find a doctor or a psychotherapist. But someday, eventually, when he is not so full with anguish, he can think of him being responsible for his disorders. He can eventually come into the psychoanalytic process.

> > I suspect that 100 years from now both Freud and Marx will be looked
> upon as interesting cranks, whose popularity were fleeting, and who
> added little to the history of ideas.

Of course I can't follow you there, but this is another story.

Best regards

Jacques

Dr. Jacques B. Siboni
8 pass. Charles Albert F75018 Paris, France
Tel & Fax : (33 1) 42 28 76 78

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