Ideas of Wagner

[g***@gmail.com]

Do the ideas of W. also suffer from same things that the ideas of
Freud suffer from?:

- The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly
understood them, who were incapable of the great effort required to
grasp them in their relationship to larger truths, and who therefore
assigned to them a prominence out of all proportion to their true
importance.

Alfred North Whitehead ("Dialogues")

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Do the ideas of W. also suffer from same things that the ideas of
- The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly
understood them, who were incapable of the great effort required to
grasp them in their relationship to larger truths, and who therefore
assigned to them a prominence out of all proportion to their true
importance.
Alfred North Whitehead ("Dialogues")

I'm not well grounded in philosophy, but I'd think this could be said of almost any influential thinker, couldn't it? And one could add that their disciples seize on and exaggerate aspects that appeal to them, turn a useful and flexible analysis into a rigid and even dictatorial system, and use their name to justify results and actions that would have dismayed their originator. You could apply that to Jesus and St Paul, Darwin and Herbert Spencer, Marx and Lenin and Stalin -- well, some thinkers are more open to it than others, and it could well be said that Lenin's actions are implicit in Marx's milleniarist beliefs. Wagner's disciples, from Cosima onwards, certainly did misinterpret, distort and rigidify his concepts.

But unlike Freud or Darwin etc Wagner's ideas are by far the less important part of his creation. Far from being a systematic pattern of thought, they were poorly researched, inconsistent, cranky and often at the level of grumpy breakfast-table diatribes dashed off as they occurred to him. What consistency they have owes more to his general concerns and selective self-education than any systematic thought; his was a brilliant intellect, but perhaps thanks to his patchy education a distinctly scattergun one. Only in music, which he knew better than anything else, are his ideas at all significant. These also suffered the misunderstandings Whitehead suggests, resulting, for example, in imitators building up mediocre, noisy works on a formulaic leitmotif system, wholly lacking the fluency and complexity of Wagner's own. But they had little lasting influence, and are mostly forgotten now. His non-musical thinking was of course co-opted by the likes of Houston Stewart Chamberlain and other proto-Nazis, but by the time the Nazis themselves came along they too were largely irrelevant, and referred to only to lend respectability to a new insane ideology. So while people indeed didn't understand Wagner properly, it had little bearing on his real genius, which is in his works.

I myself feel that Freud is a bad example, really, because I don't believe he was a misunderstood genius. Given his own inconsistencies, his early sensational doctrines, his self-publicizing, his much-trumpeted "cures" which have been shown to be false, and the advances of medical knowledge which have proved that many conditions he claimed to "treat" as having a purely physical basis --and that he might as well have claimed to heal a broken leg by talking about it -- I'd say he was much of a charlatan to begin with, and thus attractive to other charlatans, such as the egregious R.D.Laing in the 1960s. Unlike Wagner, he did not redeem his half-baked ideas with actual achievement.

Cheers,

Mike

[A.C. Douglas]

Mike Scott Rohan wrote [in response to the following quote of Alfred North Whitehead]:

"The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly understood them, who were incapable of the great effort required to grasp them in their relationship to larger truths, and who therefore assigned to them a prominence out of all proportion to their true importance."

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
I'm not well grounded in philosophy, but I'd think this could be said of
almost any influential thinker, couldn't it?
[...]
I myself feel that Freud is a bad example, really, because I don't believe
he was a misunderstood genius. Given his own inconsistencies, his early
sensational doctrines, his self-publicizing, his much-trumpeted "cures"
which have been shown to be false, and the advances of medical knowledge
which have proved that many conditions he claimed to "treat" as having a
purely physical basis --and that he might as well have claimed to heal a
broken leg by talking about it -- I'd say he was much of a charlatan to
begin with, and thus attractive to other charlatans....

Not well-grounded in psychoanalysis either, I see. Or in the subject of Freud himself.

I won't debate Freud and psychoanalysis with you here on this forum as it's an inappropriate place for such a debate, or in any other venue, for that matter, until you first hit the books -- hard. I'll say only that not only are you wrong about psychoanalysis but about Freud personally. Freud was, in short, a genius for the ages, and while it's fashionable today (and has been for a number of decades now) to bash psychoanalysis as well as Freud, the very lead bashers of both -- mostly the so-called "hard-science" crowd with the cognitive neuroscientists in the vanguard -- will, in the end, be the very ones who will have proved themselves both unscientific and myopic and find themselves in the forefront of those who once again acknowledge Freud's transformative genius and the debt owed him for his groundbreaking work in the face of a medical world that wanted nothing to do with him or his "sensational doctrines".

I wrote a fairly long piece some 16 or so years ago dealing with all this which I reprinted on S&F in 2004 titled "Who's Afraid Of Sigmund Freud?". It can be read at the following URL:

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2004/08/whos_afraid_of_.html

ACD

[Dogbertd]

Post by A.C. Douglas
"The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly
understood them, who were incapable of the great effort required to
grasp them in their relationship to larger truths, and who therefore
assigned to them a prominence out of all proportion to their true
importance."

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
I'm not well grounded in philosophy, but I'd think this could be said of
almost any influential thinker, couldn't it?
[...]
I myself feel that Freud is a bad example, really, because I don't believe
he was a misunderstood genius. Given his own inconsistencies, his early
sensational doctrines, his self-publicizing, his much-trumpeted "cures"
which have been shown to be false, and the advances of medical knowledge
which have proved that many conditions he claimed to "treat" as having a
purely physical basis --and that he might as well have claimed to heal a
broken leg by talking about it -- I'd say he was much of a charlatan to
begin with, and thus attractive to other charlatans....

Not well-grounded in psychoanalysis either, I see. Or in the subject of Freud himself.
I won't debate Freud and psychoanalysis with you here on this forum as
it's an inappropriate place for such a debate, or in any other venue,
for that matter, until you first hit the books -- hard. I'll say only
that not only are you wrong about psychoanalysis but about Freud
personally. Freud was, in short, a genius for the ages, and while it's
fashionable today (and has been for a number of decades now) to bash
psychoanalysis as well as Freud, the very lead bashers of both --
mostly the so-called "hard-science" crowd with the cognitive
neuroscientists in the vanguard -- will, in the end, be the very ones
who will have proved themselves both unscientific and myopic and find
themselves in the forefront of those who once again acknowledge Freud's
transformative genius and the debt owed him for his groundbreaking work
in the face of a medical world that wanted nothing to do with him or
his "sensational doctrines".
I wrote a fairly long piece some 16 or so years ago dealing with all
this which I reprinted on S&F in 2004 titled "Who's Afraid Of Sigmund
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2004/08/whos_afraid_of_.html
ACD

Ah, "the so-called "hard-science" crowd" - you mean the ones who
actually *use* the scientific method? Something I think Freud had only
a glancing appreciation of. A great writer, an interesting thinker, but
a great scientist? No. A great physician? Also, no.

And yes, I have read his works, and the biographies, and my opinion of
Freud is still much closer to Mike's, I'm afraid.

Dogbertd

[Richard Partridge]

Post by Dogbertd

Post by A.C. Douglas
"The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly
understood them, who were incapable of the great effort required to
grasp them in their relationship to larger truths, and who therefore
assigned to them a prominence out of all proportion to their true
importance."

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
I'm not well grounded in philosophy, but I'd think this could be said of
almost any influential thinker, couldn't it?
[...]
I myself feel that Freud is a bad example, really, because I don't believe
he was a misunderstood genius. Given his own inconsistencies, his early
sensational doctrines, his self-publicizing, his much-trumpeted "cures"
which have been shown to be false, and the advances of medical knowledge
which have proved that many conditions he claimed to "treat" as having a
purely physical basis --and that he might as well have claimed to heal a
broken leg by talking about it -- I'd say he was much of a charlatan to
begin with, and thus attractive to other charlatans....

Not well-grounded in psychoanalysis either, I see. Or in the subject of Freud himself.
I won't debate Freud and psychoanalysis with you here on this forum as
it's an inappropriate place for such a debate, or in any other venue,
for that matter, until you first hit the books -- hard. I'll say only
that not only are you wrong about psychoanalysis but about Freud
personally. Freud was, in short, a genius for the ages, and while it's
fashionable today (and has been for a number of decades now) to bash
psychoanalysis as well as Freud, the very lead bashers of both --
mostly the so-called "hard-science" crowd with the cognitive
neuroscientists in the vanguard -- will, in the end, be the very ones
who will have proved themselves both unscientific and myopic and find
themselves in the forefront of those who once again acknowledge Freud's
transformative genius and the debt owed him for his groundbreaking work
in the face of a medical world that wanted nothing to do with him or
his "sensational doctrines".
I wrote a fairly long piece some 16 or so years ago dealing with all
this which I reprinted on S&F in 2004 titled "Who's Afraid Of Sigmund
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2004/08/whos_afraid_of_.html
ACD

Ah, "the so-called "hard-science" crowd" - you mean the ones who
actually *use* the scientific method? Something I think Freud had only
a glancing appreciation of. A great writer, an interesting thinker, but
a great scientist? No. A great physician? Also, no.
And yes, I have read his works, and the biographies, and my opinion of
Freud is still much closer to Mike's, I'm afraid.
Dogbertd

It's curious that Freud, supposedly a man of science, seems to have had so
little interest in Darwin's theories. Instead of reaching for preposterous
ideas of Eros and Thanatos, he would have done better to read ethologists
like Konrad Lorenz. If you want to understand human nature, studying animal
nature is not a bad place to start.


Dick Partridge

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Richard Partridge
It's curious that Freud, supposedly a man of science, seems to have had so
little interest in Darwin's theories.

Wherever did you get such an absurd idea? Darwin was one of Freud's intellectual heroes. As Freud biographer Peter Gay points out, for Freud, Darwin was always "the great Darwin".

ACD

[Richard Partridge]

Post by A.C. Douglas
"The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly understood
them, who were incapable of the great effort required to grasp them in their
relationship to larger truths, and who therefore assigned to them a prominence
out of all proportion to their true importance."

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
I'm not well grounded in philosophy, but I'd think this could be said of
almost any influential thinker, couldn't it?
[...]
I myself feel that Freud is a bad example, really, because I don't believe
he was a misunderstood genius. Given his own inconsistencies, his early
sensational doctrines, his self-publicizing, his much-trumpeted "cures"
which have been shown to be false, and the advances of medical knowledge
which have proved that many conditions he claimed to "treat" as having a
purely physical basis --and that he might as well have claimed to heal a
broken leg by talking about it -- I'd say he was much of a charlatan to
begin with, and thus attractive to other charlatans....

Not well-grounded in psychoanalysis either, I see. Or in the subject of Freud himself.
I won't debate Freud and psychoanalysis with you here on this forum as it's an
inappropriate place for such a debate, or in any other venue, for that matter,
until you first hit the books -- hard. I'll say only that not only are you
wrong about psychoanalysis but about Freud personally. Freud was, in short, a
genius for the ages, and while it's fashionable today (and has been for a
number of decades now) to bash psychoanalysis as well as Freud, the very lead
bashers of both -- mostly the so-called "hard-science" crowd with the
cognitive neuroscientists in the vanguard -- will, in the end, be the very
ones who will have proved themselves both unscientific and myopic and find
themselves in the forefront of those who once again acknowledge Freud's
transformative genius and the debt owed him for his groundbreaking work in the
face of a medical world that wanted nothing to do with him or his "sensational
doctrines".
I wrote a fairly long piece some 16 or so years ago dealing with all this
which I reprinted on S&F in 2004 titled "Who's Afraid Of Sigmund Freud?". It
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2004/08/whos_afraid_of_.html
ACD

Vladimir Nabokov, whom I greatly admire, has these lines in "Pale Fire":

"* * * Your modern architect
Is in collusion with psychanalysts [sic]:
When planning parents' bedrooms he insists
On lockless doors so that, when looking back,
The future patient of the future quack
May find, all set for him, the Primal Scene."


Dick Partridge

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by A.C. Douglas
"The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly understood them, who were incapable of the great effort required to grasp them in their relationship to larger truths, and who therefore assigned to them a prominence out of all proportion to their true importance."

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
I'm not well grounded in philosophy, but I'd think this could be said of
almost any influential thinker, couldn't it?
[...]
I myself feel that Freud is a bad example, really, because I don't believe
he was a misunderstood genius. Given his own inconsistencies, his early
sensational doctrines, his self-publicizing, his much-trumpeted "cures"
which have been shown to be false, and the advances of medical knowledge
which have proved that many conditions he claimed to "treat" as having a
purely physical basis --and that he might as well have claimed to heal a
broken leg by talking about it -- I'd say he was much of a charlatan to
begin with, and thus attractive to other charlatans....

Not well-grounded in psychoanalysis either, I see. Or in the subject of Freud himself.
I won't debate Freud and psychoanalysis with you here on this forum as it's an inappropriate place for such a debate, or in any other venue, for that matter, until you first hit the books -- hard. I'll say only that not only are you wrong about psychoanalysis but about Freud personally. Freud was, in short, a genius for the ages, and while it's fashionable today (and has been for a number of decades now) to bash psychoanalysis as well as Freud, the very lead bashers of both -- mostly the so-called "hard-science" crowd with the cognitive neuroscientists in the vanguard -- will, in the end, be the very ones who will have proved themselves both unscientific and myopic and find themselves in the forefront of those who once again acknowledge Freud's transformative genius and the debt owed him for his groundbreaking work in the face of a medical world that wanted nothing to do with him or his "sensational doctrines".
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2004/08/whos_afraid_of_.html
ACD

Quite well grounded in the history of psychoanalysis, actually, though like yourself a total amateur. I read more on Jung and more contemporary figures like R.D.Laing and the Freudian behaviourist Bruno Bettelheim, once fashionable but now regarded as more or less total charlatans; Bettelheim even faked his degree. And a long time ago I read both Freud's biography and the comparison of Freud's purported case cures with what is traceable of the actual results. I have never been able to take him seriously since, or Freudianism, which as the late (and genuine) psychiatrist Chris Evans commented has more the characteristics of a cult like Scientology. It's little use arguing with you about this, of course, or anything much else; you consider acknowledging contrary evidence, however undeniable, as weakness, and blind obstinacy as a virtue. Neither is the case; it's called reason and rationality, Naturally Freud has little to do with that.

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
Quite well grounded in the history of psychoanalysis, actually
though like yourself a total amateur.

Didn't read my linked piece, did you. Of course you didn't. Typical MSR.

ACD

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by A.C. Douglas

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
Quite well grounded in the history of psychoanalysis, actually
though like yourself a total amateur.

Didn't read my linked piece, did you. Of course you didn't. Typical MSR.
ACD

Typical ACD. I've already said I disapprove of you using this group to promote your own site. If you've anything to say, say it here.

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
Typical ACD. I've already said I disapprove of you using this group to
promote your own site. If you've anything to say, say it here.

In this case, that's a total crock, m'boy. (It's a total crock generally as well as I've *never* "us[ed] this group to promote [my] own site." The very idea is absurd.) In this case, my reason for linking to my S&F reprint of a fairly long piece I wrote many years ago is because this group is NOT an appropriate venue for a debate on Freud and psychoanalysis as I've already made clear here, and because I wished to disabuse you personally of your ignorant imaginings regarding both.

Stop being a twit about this, Mike. Read my piece, learn, and say thank you -- publicly.

ACD

[REP]

Post by A.C. Douglas
Stop being a twit about this, Mike. Read my piece, learn, and say thank you -- publicly.
ACD

Well, I read it, and didn't get much out of it, because you don't actually defend Freud's theories; you just unload on Steven Pinker (and other people) for disbelieving them.

You also theorize about why Freud has fallen out of favor, but that has little to do with being right or wrong.

REP

[A.C. Douglas]

Well, I read it [ACD's S&F reprint of his piece on Freud and
psychoanalysis], and didn't get much out of it, because you don't actually
defend Freud's theories; you just unload on Steven Pinker (and other
people) for disbelieving them. You also theorize about why Freud has fallen
out of favor, but that has little to do with being right or wrong.

Not for disbelieving psychoanalytic theory, Rep, but for dismissing it pretty much out of hand.

I don't mean to put you off, Rep, but as I've now iterated twice before here this forum is NOT an appropriate venue to discuss and debate this vastly complex subject. If enough folks are interested, it would be a relatively quick and simple matter to set up a separate forum explicitly for that purpose.

Y'all let me know what interest might exist here for setting up such a venue.

ACD

[REP]

Post by A.C. Douglas

Well, I read it [ACD's S&F reprint of his piece on Freud and
psychoanalysis], and didn't get much out of it, because you don't actually
defend Freud's theories; you just unload on Steven Pinker (and other
people) for disbelieving them. You also theorize about why Freud has fallen
out of favor, but that has little to do with being right or wrong.

Not for disbelieving psychoanalytic theory, Rep, but for dismissing it pretty much out of hand.
I don't mean to put you off, Rep, but as I've now iterated twice before here this forum is NOT an appropriate venue to discuss and debate this vastly complex subject. If enough folks are interested, it would be a relatively quick and simple matter to set up a separate forum explicitly for that purpose.
Y'all let me know what interest might exist here for setting up such a venue.
ACD

I didn't get the impression that Mike was dismissing psychoanalytic theory out of hand. It sounds to me as though he has a firm grip on the subject. Firm enough to have an opinion, anyways. And Mike certainly isn't known for being under-informed around here. Far from it.

As for discussing Freud, I, for one, have no objection. Freud was an important figure in German history -- perhaps, chronologically, the most important after Wagner -- and even a major influence on opera and aesthetics. I even suspect that one can find Regietheater's roots partly in Freud, whose penchant for finding meaning beneath the surface, like Regietheater, usually resulted in a lot of sex and perversion.

REP

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by REP
I didn't get the impression that Mike was dismissing psychoanalytic theory
out of hand.

Mike(!)? We were talking about my S&F reprint of many years ago and I was there referring principally to Steven Pinker. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Mike. How could it have.

Post by REP
As for discussing Freud [on this forum], I, for one, have no objection.
Freud was an important figure in German history -- perhaps,
chronologically, the most important after Wagner -- and even a major
influence on opera and aesthetics. I even suspect that one can find
Regietheater's roots partly in Freud, whose penchant for finding meaning
beneath the surface, like Regietheater, usually resulted in a lot of sex
and perversion.

I've no argument with that and in fact agree. If the other participating members of this forum also agree, I'd be perfectly willing to go along. But things can get pretty technical in such a discussion as, by necessity, it would have to focus on psychoanalytic theory, not its clinical practice which is another matter altogether.

ACD

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by A.C. Douglas
But things can get pretty technical in such a discussion as, by necessity,
it would have to focus on psychoanalytic theory, not its clinical practice
which is another matter altogether.

The above should have read: "...it would have to focus on psychoanalytic theory as set forth by Freud himself, not his followers...."

ACD

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by REP
I didn't get the impression that Mike was dismissing psychoanalytic theory out of hand. It sounds to me as though he has a firm grip on the subject. Firm enough to have an opinion, anyways. And Mike certainly isn't known for being under-informed around here. Far from it.

Which translates as "knowall", perhaps truthfully; but thank you for those kind words. I do know enough about the subject to know how little I know, if that makes sense, but also how little a lot of other people know -- and how readily Freud has been seized on by amateurs to suit their own purposes, often highly tendentious; the 50s and 60s were particularly rife with that. My scepticism is founded partly on how easily Freud's doctrines lend themselves to distorted interpretations, much as Marx's also do, and partly on his drive for self-advertisement and self-aggrandisement, which is worthy of a snake-oil seller. Chiefly, though, it comes from the exposure of his purported case record, which I read about a while back, and should be better known. I'm too busy comparing some very pleasant Atterberg symphonies to chase this up in detail, so I'll content myself with a quote from Wikipedia:

"Historian of science Dr. Frank J. Sulloway contends "Freud's case histories are rampant with censorship, distortions, highly dubious 'reconstructions,' and exaggerated claims."

But you're right to say that I'm not attacking psychoanalysis as a whole -- quite the contrary. It's contributed a great deal, considered as a wide discipline; even Freud contributed a few concepts, although they were often already inherent among his Viennese colleagues. But today it's chiefly valid the more closely it relates to the medical sciences, and not dogmatic pronouncements formulated on little or no evidence. You cannot help schizophrenia by talking about it, any more than a broken leg.

Post by REP
As for discussing Freud, I, for one, have no objection. Freud was an important figure in German history -- perhaps, chronologically, the most important after Wagner -- and even a major influence on opera and aesthetics. I even suspect that one can find Regietheater's roots partly in Freud, whose penchant for finding meaning beneath the surface, like Regietheater, usually resulted in a lot of sex and perversion.

I think there's a lot of truth in that, and it applies to all the arts -- often as an excuse for childish self-indulgence. One only has to read a novel by, say, Michel Foucault to see where it's led. Of course Freud isn't the only influence of that kind; Marx and Sartre have had very similar effects, attracting mediocre minds eager for a candle to flutter around, hungry for a system to substitute for creativity. And certainly Wagner himself was also such a focal point, and not only in music; the influence of the Revue Wagnerienne was enormous in European intellectual life. Even D.H.Lawrence wrote a Wagnerian novel, and highly embarrassing it is. So IMHO one can certainly discuss Freud here, if one must, despite A.C.D.'s uncharacteristic coyness.

Cheers,

Mike

[REP]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-7, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
I'm too busy comparing some very pleasant Atterberg symphonies to chase this up in detail[...]
Maybe I'm a sap, but I think Atterberg wrote some of the finest slow movements ever written. Bruckner is sometimes called an Adagio-Komponist (Affectionately? dismissively? I'm not sure), but I think the same applies to Atterberg. Whatever one thinks about the symphonies on the whole, I don't think anyone can deny that the slow movements are something special. Those of the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th are particularly moving.

REP

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by REP
I'm too busy comparing some very pleasant Atterberg symphonies to chase this up in detail[...]
Maybe I'm a sap, but I think Atterberg wrote some of the finest slow movements ever written. Bruckner is sometimes called an Adagio-Komponist (Affectionately? dismissively? I'm not sure), but I think the same applies to Atterberg. Whatever one thinks about the symphonies on the whole, I don't think anyone can deny that the slow movements are something special. Those of the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th are particularly moving.
REP

He's certainly an interesting composer, harder to assess than some of his fellow Scands of the time, not least because his idiom, though more conservative, was more diverse and less immediately recognisable than, say, Svendsen or Stenhammar. The point about his slow movements is interesting, and I'll listen again with it in mind. What I'm actually reviewing at the moment is Neeme Jarvi's new recording of 1 and 5, but I'm taking the opportunity to remind myself of some of the others, especially in Ari Rasilainen's set. Certainly in the 1st the adagio fourth movement seems to me much better than the others, perhaps because he added it after a scholarship trip to Germany. The lento second movement of the 5th is impressive, an eerie lament and funeral march, but I feel it's strongest in the context of the rest rather than in its own right. It's an extraordinary danse macabre of a symphony, unlike anything else I can think of from the Scands, and I prefer it to some of the more famous ones, the Dollar Symphony for example. A minor master at best, and certainly eclipsed by others, but he did have interesting things to say, and was unfairly sidelined during the serialist regime; nice to see people taking an interest in him again!

Cheers,

Mike

[p***@yahoo.com]

Really enjoyed reading Mike Scott Rohan's notes.

For those still in doubt:

"Killing Freud: Twentieth Century Culture and the Death of Psychoanalysis" by Todd Dufresne

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Freud-Twentieth-Century-Psychoanalysis/dp/0826493394

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by p***@yahoo.com
Really enjoyed reading Mike Scott Rohan's notes.
"Killing Freud: Twentieth Century Culture and the Death of Psychoanalysis" by Todd Dufresne
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Freud-Twentieth-Century-Psychoanalysis/dp/0826493394

Thanks for that -- will look it up when I've a moment. Trouble is here that I think we're dealing with a combination of quasi-religious belief and professional self-interest, and they take a long time to fade away. Freud did so suit a particular world-view -- rather like Margaret Mead -- and provided a system that was so easy for an amateur to juggle with. This all makes it hard to assess what his genuine contribution to the field actually was. But the degree of fakery he himself inevitably downgrades it.

He was also, like many guru theorists, highly open to other people's daft theories, adding personal spin. For example, he was attracted to the so-called "Shakespeare debate". Freud pronounced privately that Shakespeare was actually an imposter, a Frenchman (!) called Jacques-Pierre. This makes a *little* more sense if you say it with a broad Viennese accent...

[Richard Partridge]

On 7/13/15 8:26 PM, Mike Scott Rohan, at

Post by Mike Scott Rohan

Post by p***@yahoo.com
Really enjoyed reading Mike Scott Rohan's notes.
"Killing Freud: Twentieth Century Culture and the Death of Psychoanalysis" by
Todd Dufresne
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Freud-Twentieth-Century-Psychoanalysis/dp/08264
93394

Thanks for that -- will look it up when I've a moment. Trouble is here that I
think we're dealing with a combination of quasi-religious belief and
professional self-interest, and they take a long time to fade away. Freud did
so suit a particular world-view -- rather like Margaret Mead -- and provided a
system that was so easy for an amateur to juggle with. This all makes it hard
to assess what his genuine contribution to the field actually was. But the
degree of fakery he himself inevitably downgrades it.
He was also, like many guru theorists, highly open to other people's daft
theories, adding personal spin. For example, he was attracted to the so-called
"Shakespeare debate". Freud pronounced privately that Shakespeare was actually
an imposter, a Frenchman (!) called Jacques-Pierre. This makes a *little* more
sense if you say it with a broad Viennese accent...

I think that's a very perceptive assessment of the witch doctor from Vienna.


Dick Partridge

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by p***@yahoo.com
Really enjoyed reading Mike Scott Rohan's notes.

"Mike Scott Rohan's notes"? What notes? Mike made no "notes" beyond his ignorant notion that both Freud and psychoanalysis are frauds. And what about what Mike had to say did you find enjoyable? The fact that, just as ignorantly, you agree with Mike's ignorant assessment?

No doubt.

ACD

[p***@yahoo.com]

Post by A.C. Douglas
"Mike Scott Rohan's notes"? What notes? Mike made no "notes" beyond his ignorant notion that both Freud and psychoanalysis are frauds. And what about what Mike had to say did you find enjoyable? The fact that, just as ignorantly, you agree with Mike's ignorant assessment?

I enjoyed Mike's comments in the same way as I sometimes do enjoy your remarks on Regietheater. As simple as that.

Otherwise, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

As a physician myself, I can't see any role for psychoanalysis in the era of genetics, molecular biology, neuroscience and biopsychology.

It is impossible not to note Mike Scott Rohan's usual insight and knowledge in the field quite distant from our primary subject here, of which he is an major expert.

For those who might be interested, I uploaded Todd Dufresne's aforementioned book in pdf format: http://www.mediafire.com/download/1gxg1nnhrv7bbqq/KF.zip

[A.C. Douglas]

[E]veryone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

Quite right, just as you're entitled to your below opinion that...

As a physician [yourself], [you] can't see any role for psychoanalysis in
the era of genetics, molecular biology, neuroscience and biopsychology.

All of which are, at present, helpless to explain those aspects of mind explained by Freudian psychoanalytic theory (as opposed to theories put forward by Freud's followers), never mind the "metaphorical language Freud was compelled to use in order to make his revolutionary theories comprehensible; language that Freud himself longed to be able to dispense with, if not for himself then for future psychoanalysts, when, with advances in medical and laboratory techniques, it would be possible to identify, define, and measure directly the neurobiological mechanisms that Freud was certain underlie all mental processes," as I put it in my previously linked S&F piece.

ACD

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by A.C. Douglas
All of which are, at present, helpless to explain those aspects of mind
explained by Freudian psychoanalytic theory....

Words missing in the above. It should have read (missing words uppercased): "All of which are, at present, helpless to explain those aspects AND PROCESSES of mind explained by Freudian psychoanalytic theory...."

ACD

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
You cannot help schizophrenia by talking about it, any more than a broken
leg.

Quite right, just as Freud himself held.

ACD

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by A.C. Douglas

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
You cannot help schizophrenia by talking about it, any more than a broken
leg.

Quite right, just as Freud himself held.
ACD

Not so, but since you pay no attention to argument or evidence that doesn't suit you, why should I waste my time with you? You have several times in the past had your assertions thoroughly demolished, not just by me, and still claimed you've won. If you're so fond of Freud you could try analysing yourself.

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Mike Scott Rohan

Post by A.C. Douglas

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
You cannot help schizophrenia by talking about it, any more than a broken
leg.

Quite right, just as Freud himself held.
ACD

Not so, but since you pay no attention to argument or evidence that doesn't suit you, why should I waste my time with you? You have several times in the past had your assertions thoroughly demolished, not just by me, and still claimed you've won. If you're so fond of Freud you could try analysing yourself.

Of course it's so otherwise I wouldn't have said it's so.

Hit the books!, Mike. Your ignorance where Freud and psychoanalysis is concerned is positively epic.

ACD

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by A.C. Douglas
Hit the books!, Mike. Your ignorance where Freud and psychoanalysis is
concerned is positively epic.

Oops. The above should have read: "I again repeat, Hit the books!, Mike. Your ignorance where Freud and psychoanalysis is concerned is positively epic."

ACD

[Richard Partridge]

Post by A.C. Douglas

Post by A.C. Douglas
Hit the books!, Mike. Your ignorance where Freud and psychoanalysis is
concerned is positively epic.

Oops. The above should have read: "I again repeat, Hit the books!, Mike. Your
ignorance where Freud and psychoanalysis is concerned is positively epic."
ACD

One of Freud's ideas that I consider sensible, although it was hardly
original with him, is the theory that some of the mistakes we make are
unconsciously motivated.

How would that theory apply to your error noted above? Were you
unconsciously troubled by the tautology in the phrase "again repeat?" Was
that why you neglected to type it the first time?

An example of an idea I consider nonsense is something I read many years ago
in Freud's "A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis." (I read it in
English. I don't know what the German title of the book is.) He wrote that
motion is erotic, and a man may experience an erection in a train as he
watches the scenery go by. In truth, any erection that may be experienced
in a moving train is more likely to have a physical cause, as one is bounced
around on the cushions.

Dick Partridge

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Richard Partridge
One of Freud's ideas that I consider sensible, although it was hardly
original with him, is the theory that some of the mistakes we make are
unconsciously motivated.

Psychoanalysis (in its theoretical principles, not in its clinical practice) is rigorously deterministic. What is entirely original with Freud and psychoanalysis is that ALL slips of tongue and pen and even of physical actions are considered to have their genesis in and are provoked by something in the content of an individual's unconscious. No exceptions. None. None at all. There are no accidents of this sort. Only purposeful acts, consciously or unconsciously born and provoked.

Post by Richard Partridge
An example of an idea I consider nonsense is something I read many years
that motion is erotic, and a man may experience an erection in a train as
he watches the scenery go by. In truth, any erection that may be
experienced in a moving train is more likely to have a physical cause, as
one is bounced around on the cushions.

I assume you mean Freud's "Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis", a book I've not read in decades so I can't recall Freud's remark or reasoning in the particular instance you cite. But let's examine what you above wrote in the light of psychoanalytic theory generally.

Are you above contending that simply the physical motion of a train over the tracks is itself sufficient to cause an erection to occur in all its male passengers? Surely not, even though it seems that's what you're contending. The idea is, of course, preposterous as I'm certain you'll agree.

So, what is it that actually does provoke an erection in some of the train's male passengers according to psychoanalytic theory? It is that experienced motion, any and all experienced motion, awakens within all humans libidinal (i.e., "erotic") impulses and that some males on that train actually act on those impulses, albeit unconsciously and for any number of reasons hidden from the actor, by responding with an erection.

Perfectly straightforward and anything but nonsense.

And finally...

Post by Richard Partridge
Were you unconsciously troubled by the tautology in the phrase "again
repeat?" Was that why you neglected to type it the first time?

Ah! That's getting into the psychoanalytic spirit of things!

There are two things to examine here. The first is my reason for not including the opening phrase when I first wrote the post. That's easily answered as my not including that opening phrase first time around was a conscious decision on my part. It seemed too hard on Mike; a little like rubbing it in, and so I omitted that opening salvo; an action I later reconsidered; ergo, my correcting post.

The second thing to examine is my use of the possibly tautological "again repeat". The answer to that is that I distinctly "remembered" my telling Mike to "Hit the books!" several times before in this thread in which case my "again repeat" would not be at all tautological. Turns out, however, I admonished Mike to hit the books but a single time before in this thread which does indeed make my "again repeat" a tautology. So the question now becomes: Why did I so badly misremember how many times before I'd admonished Mike to hit the books in this thread? It's the answer to that question that needs to be arrived at and examined psychoanalytically in order to discover the truth of the matter. I trust I'll be forgiven for not doing so in public.

ACD

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by A.C. Douglas
There are no accidents of this sort. Only purposeful acts, consciously or
unconsciously born and provoked.

On rereading the above, I see it's improperly punctuated and unclear as it stands. It would better and more clearly have been written:

"There are no accidents of this sort, only purposeful acts, consciously or unconsciously born and provoked. If consciously born and provoked they're instantly recognized as purposeful acts. If born and provoked unconsciously they're never so recognized and counted as mere slips of tongue or pen or physical action (i.e., 'accidents')."

ACD

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by A.C. Douglas
The second thing to examine is my use of the possibly tautological "again repeat". The answer to that is that I distinctly "remembered" my telling Mike to "Hit the books!" several times before in this thread in which case my "again repeat" would not be at all tautological. Turns out, however, I admonished Mike to hit the books but a single time before in this thread which does indeed make my "again repeat" a tautology. So the question now becomes: Why did I so badly misremember how many times before I'd admonished Mike to hit the books in this thread? It's the answer to that question that needs to be arrived at and examined psychoanalytically in order to discover the truth of the matter. I trust I'll be forgiven for not doing so in public.

As usual, a bit pathetic, and not least for your pedantry; repetition is not necessarily tautology. But beyond that, you order me to hit the books, yet when many times in the past I and others have done so and disproved your sillier assertions, you've ignored "the books" or tried to bluster your way past them. It had a certain amusement value, but that's worn thin; it always looked cranky, now it simply seems childish, even a bit pathological. I won't be drawn into it, especially with someone who's not only at least as big an amateur as I am, but a narrow-minded and insistent obsessive to boot -- the kind of figure you see in the park, waving his stick and shouting "Come back, sir, I haven't finished yet!" Your website is well named, but you should have included the following line as well.

[Richard Partridge]

On 7/1/15 12:36 PM, Mike Scott Rohan, at

Post by Mike Scott Rohan

Post by REP
I didn't get the impression that Mike was dismissing psychoanalytic theory
out of hand. It sounds to me as though he has a firm grip on the subject.
Firm enough to have an opinion, anyways. And Mike certainly isn't known for
being under-informed around here. Far from it.

Which translates as "knowall", perhaps truthfully; but thank you for those
kind words. I do know enough about the subject to know how little I know, if
that makes sense, but also how little a lot of other people know -- and how
readily Freud has been seized on by amateurs to suit their own purposes, often
highly tendentious; the 50s and 60s were particularly rife with that. My
scepticism is founded partly on how easily Freud's doctrines lend themselves
to distorted interpretations, much as Marx's also do, and partly on his drive
for self-advertisement and self-aggrandisement, which is worthy of a snake-oil
seller. Chiefly, though, it comes from the exposure of his purported case
record, which I read about a while back, and should be better known. I'm too
busy comparing some very pleasant Atterberg symphonies to chase this up in
"Historian of science Dr. Frank J. Sulloway contends "Freud's case histories
are rampant with censorship, distortions, highly dubious 'reconstructions,'
and exaggerated claims."
But you're right to say that I'm not attacking psychoanalysis as a whole --
quite the contrary. It's contributed a great deal, considered as a wide
discipline; even Freud contributed a few concepts, although they were often
already inherent among his Viennese colleagues. But today it's chiefly valid
the more closely it relates to the medical sciences, and not dogmatic
pronouncements formulated on little or no evidence. You cannot help
schizophrenia by talking about it, any more than a broken leg.

Post by REP
As for discussing Freud, I, for one, have no objection. Freud was an
important figure in German history -- perhaps, chronologically, the most
important after Wagner -- and even a major influence on opera and aesthetics.
I even suspect that one can find Regietheater's roots partly in Freud, whose
penchant for finding meaning beneath the surface, like Regietheater, usually
resulted in a lot of sex and perversion.

I think there's a lot of truth in that, and it applies to all the arts --
often as an excuse for childish self-indulgence. One only has to read a novel
by, say, Michel Foucault to see where it's led. Of course Freud isn't the only
influence of that kind; Marx and Sartre have had very similar effects,
attracting mediocre minds eager for a candle to flutter around, hungry for a
system to substitute for creativity. And certainly Wagner himself was also
such a focal point, and not only in music; the influence of the Revue
Wagnerienne was enormous in European intellectual life. Even D.H.Lawrence
wrote a Wagnerian novel, and highly embarrassing it is. So IMHO one can
certainly discuss Freud here, if one must, despite A.C.D.'s uncharacteristic
coyness.
Cheers,
Mike

I second the motion. Let's talk about Freud.

Many years ago a review of Marshall McLuhan's book, "Understanding Media,"
was reviewed in The New Yorker magazine. I don't remember the reviewer's
name, but he summed up his opinion in a phrase that stuck in my mind. The
book, he said, is "impure nonsense -- that is, nonsense mixed with sense."
That would apply to Freud, in my opinion.

Dick Partridge

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Richard Partridge
I second the motion. Let's talk about Freud.
Many years ago a review of Marshall McLuhan's book, "Understanding Media,"
was reviewed in The New Yorker magazine. I don't remember the reviewer's
name, but he summed up his opinion in a phrase that stuck in my mind. The
book, he said, is "impure nonsense -- that is, nonsense mixed with sense."
That would apply to Freud, in my opinion.

Perhaps you can tell us why you think it would apply to Freud by way of example.

ACD

[Richard Partridge]

On 6/29/15 1:24 PM, Mike Scott Rohan, at

Post by Mike Scott Rohan

Post by A.C. Douglas
"The ideas of Freud were popularised by people who only imperfectly
understood them, who were incapable of the great effort required to grasp
them in their relationship to larger truths, and who therefore assigned to
them a prominence out of all proportion to their true importance."

Post by Mike Scott Rohan
I'm not well grounded in philosophy, but I'd think this could be said of
almost any influential thinker, couldn't it?
[...]
I myself feel that Freud is a bad example, really, because I don't believe
he was a misunderstood genius. Given his own inconsistencies, his early
sensational doctrines, his self-publicizing, his much-trumpeted "cures"
which have been shown to be false, and the advances of medical knowledge
which have proved that many conditions he claimed to "treat" as having a
purely physical basis --and that he might as well have claimed to heal a
broken leg by talking about it -- I'd say he was much of a charlatan to
begin with, and thus attractive to other charlatans....

Not well-grounded in psychoanalysis either, I see. Or in the subject of Freud himself.
I won't debate Freud and psychoanalysis with you here on this forum as it's
an inappropriate place for such a debate, or in any other venue, for that
matter, until you first hit the books -- hard. I'll say only that not only
are you wrong about psychoanalysis but about Freud personally. Freud was, in
short, a genius for the ages, and while it's fashionable today (and has been
for a number of decades now) to bash psychoanalysis as well as Freud, the
very lead bashers of both -- mostly the so-called "hard-science" crowd with
the cognitive neuroscientists in the vanguard -- will, in the end, be the
very ones who will have proved themselves both unscientific and myopic and
find themselves in the forefront of those who once again acknowledge Freud's
transformative genius and the debt owed him for his groundbreaking work in
the face of a medical world that wanted nothing to do with him or his
"sensational doctrines".
I wrote a fairly long piece some 16 or so years ago dealing with all this
which I reprinted on S&F in 2004 titled "Who's Afraid Of Sigmund Freud?". It
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2004/08/whos_afraid_of_.html
ACD

Quite well grounded in the history of psychoanalysis, actually, though like
yourself a total amateur. I read more on Jung and more contemporary figures
like R.D.Laing and the Freudian behaviourist Bruno Bettelheim, once
fashionable but now regarded as more or less total charlatans; Bettelheim even
faked his degree. And a long time ago I read both Freud's biography and the
comparison of Freud's purported case cures with what is traceable of the
actual results. I have never been able to take him seriously since, or
Freudianism, which as the late (and genuine) psychiatrist Chris Evans
commented has more the characteristics of a cult like Scientology. It's little
use arguing with you about this, of course, or anything much else; you
consider acknowledging contrary evidence, however undeniable, as weakness, and
blind obstinacy as a virtue. Neither is the case; it's called reason and
rationality, Naturally Freud has little to do with that.

Lest this get too hot and heavy, here's some more from Nabokov's "Pale
Fire." This is a footnote to the word "Freud" in line 929 of the poem:

"In my mind's eye I see again the poet literally collapsing on his lawn,
beating the grass with his fist, and shaking and howling with laughter, and
myself, Dr. Kinbote, a torrent of tears streaming down my beard, as I try to
read coherently certain tidbits from a book I had filched from a classroom:
a learned work on psychoanalysis, used in American colleges, repeat, used in
American colleges. Alas, I find only two items preserved in my notebook:

'By picking the nose in spite of all commands to the contrary, or when a
youth is all the time sticking his finger through his buttonhole . . . the
analytic teacher knows that the appetite of the lustful one knows no limit
in his phantasies. (Quoted by Prof. C. from Dr. Oskar Pfister, The
Psychoanalytic Method, 1917, N.Y., p. 79.)'

'The little cap of red velvet in the German version of Little Red Riding
Hood is a symbol of menstruation. (Quoted by Prof. C. from Erich Fromm, The
Forgotten Language, 1951, N.Y., p. 240)'

Do those clowns really believe what they teach?"


Dick Partridge

[REP]

Post by Richard Partridge
Lest this get too hot and heavy, here's some more from Nabokov's "Pale
"In my mind's eye I see again the poet literally collapsing on his lawn,
beating the grass with his fist, and shaking and howling with laughter, and
myself, Dr. Kinbote, a torrent of tears streaming down my beard, as I try to
a learned work on psychoanalysis, used in American colleges, repeat, used in
'By picking the nose in spite of all commands to the contrary, or when a
youth is all the time sticking his finger through his buttonhole . . . the
analytic teacher knows that the appetite of the lustful one knows no limit
in his phantasies. (Quoted by Prof. C. from Dr. Oskar Pfister, The
Psychoanalytic Method, 1917, N.Y., p. 79.)'
'The little cap of red velvet in the German version of Little Red Riding
Hood is a symbol of menstruation. (Quoted by Prof. C. from Erich Fromm, The
Forgotten Language, 1951, N.Y., p. 240)'
Do those clowns really believe what they teach?"
Dick Partridge

And let's not forget Freudianism's greatest contribution to music, Berg's Wozzeck -- and all its imitations.

REP

[A.C. Douglas]

Post by Richard Partridge
Do those clowns really believe what they teach?"

Sadly, they do indeed.

ACD

[Mike Scott Rohan]

Post by Richard Partridge
Do those clowns really believe what they teach?"
Dick Partridge

Some of them do, certainly. The German intellectual tradition encourages a kind of dogged literalism and system, just as the French one encourages ambiguous afflatus. It occurs in all areas of learning; for example, the German approach to biological taxonomy turns the promising technique of cladism into such a rigidly inflexible and overweighted, jargon-dominated dogma that it sends people fleeing back to the imperfect Linnaean system. Art historians do the same sort of thing with symbolism, in Caspar David Friedrich for example -- practically painting by numbers. And as for that French critical bouillabaisse, deconstructionism...

But others, like Bettelheim for example, use this literalism to construct what amount to confidence tricks, while the French use the vagueness of deconstruction and post--etc as a kind of intellectual club. One French lecturer at a US college recently announced she was suing the college for vast sums because her students refused to accept her dictates unquestioningly, and one girl had actually resorted to evidence to disprove an assertion. The lady described this as "intellectual fascism", which only goes to show. R.D.Laing, famous for his supposedly systematic studies claiming mental illness, including schizophrenia, was caused by the pressures of the bourgeois family, notoriously neglected his own, two of whom committed suicide. Did any of them really believe what they traded on? I doubt it.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stuart Thomas]

Interesting comparison. Both talking therapy (pioneered by Freud) and Wagner's ideas deal with the transformative power of love, Eros vs Agape, the effects of sadism and controlling relationships (Klingsor), redemption, self-denial, boundaries and being in loco parentis (Sachs), and in general "Wahn, Wahn, über all Wahn..!"