I'm a bit flabbergasted by Cheerskep's response to my post re Winnicott. One would expect an educated person to at least examine the person's thesis that I referred to before pronouncing it ridiculous. Winnicott's contributions are widely known and highly influential and are certainly not as simplistic as Cheerskep assumes they are. Cheerskep's response is too much like the freshman's blurting out denials upon being informed that some popular myth is wrong.
Winnicott devoted a honored career to dealing with the various ways children had been psychologically damaged in infancy. Physical abuse of a baby is obviously very damaging, perhaps even the evil pinching Cheerskep refers to. Winnicott argues that the baby, the infant, acquires consciousness from an initial sense that everything is an extension of the self -- omnipotence -- and must gradually recognize that the real world is independent. Winnicott calls this object relations. Whatever greatly disturbs this natural process from infant omnipotence to an integrated relationship with objects in the world can lead to mental distress and illness later on. See Playing and Reality, 1971, for a start. For me Winnicott developed the idea that we, in consciousness, have a dynamic relationship with objects in the world. Objects define us as we define them. This does not mean that objects have intrinsic meaning but it does suggest that objects evoke, through their sensed --constructed -- shapes and traits, particular responses. Not all objects can evoke all responses although I don't know why not. They surely evoke far more than we suspect consciously and far more than we might be willing to list, depending on our metaphorical inventiveness, but our brains are simply not equipped to produce all patterns for all objects, to say nothing of those aspects of nature that fall beyond our sensing capacities. Until Cheerskep can accept that our subjectivity is not fully independent of a chaotic mass of energy-matter he cannot explain why we do tend to respond to certain shapes, and other sensory stimuli in more or less grouped ways. Here's a famous question taken from Winnicott: Did you make it or did you find it?" For a healthy mind the answer is "Both". Meanwhile, Cheerskep, now back in a Boston preppy school, is to write the following one hundred times: "I shall not say an idea is ridiculous before I understand it well enough" WC --- On Sat, 2/28/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Good Art Exists > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 7:57 PM > In a message dated 2/28/09 8:43:47 PM, > [email protected] writes: > > > > D.W. Winnicott argued that the baby presumes that all > sensation is the > > self, that all is created by the self, > > > This strikes me as absurd on two scores. First, if the baby > watches a > fiendish adult come to her and pinch her, I don't > believe the baby thinks she herself > has created that sensation. Second, Winnicott seems to be > imputing to the > baby a quasi-metaphysical ratiocination that is ridiculous. > "Presumption" indeed. > > > > > ************** > You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get > Oscars > updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. > (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
