Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> Dear Jay:
>
> I feel compelled to get into this discussion, a little late, I know but
> "pressures of real life" you know.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 5, 1998 10:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
>
> >From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> As far as I (referring to Marx) know he was never
> >clinically diagnosed (perhaps he couldn't afford to see
> >a shrink).
>
> Permit me to point out that there was no psychology or psychairitry in the
> time's that Marx lived, of course he could have went down for a little
> creative lancing to reduce his fevers of intellectual ferment but that was
> the state of medicine in most areas he lived in his lifetime
I don't have time at the moment to round up my documentation, but
psychiatry was "doing quite well, thank you", at least in France,
and the United States (e.g., the Quakers) in
the 19th Century. If Hitler came close (as a remarkable
recent New York Times article argued) to becoming a
patient of Freud, one of Freud's teachers "could" have
treated Karl Marx. Marx died 1883. Breuer's treatment of Anna O.
ended "early in June 1882, and the following November" Freud learned of
it
from Breuer (Vol II, p. xi of the Standard Edition of Freud's
Works). Somebody can date Pierre Janet's
ground-breaking discoveries which were published in 1889 but
for which I seem to think the actual clinical work preceded Anna O.'s
treatment by Breuer.
I think I'd start my search with (amazon.com
citation follows:):
> The Discovery of the Unconscious
> by Henri F. Ellenberger
> List: $42.00
> Our Price: $42.00
> Availability: This title usually ships within 24
> hours.
> Paperback, 976 pages
> Published by Basic Books (Short Disc)
> Publication date: September 1, 1981
> Dimensions (in inches): 9.20 x 6.10 x 1.75
> ISBN: 0465016731
>
> I should have said intellectual mistakes.
> >Unfortunately, metaphysicians -- then as now -- are prone
> >to this sort of bungled thinking.
>
> "bungled thinking" sort of raises my ire a little bit. In my terms, what
> Marx was trying to do was explain the social conditions of his time and
> present an alternative. From 150 years later, it may be possible to see
> errors in his reasoning but to use denigrating phraseology like "bungled"
> seems to me to prove Brad's point that the "80+ year global campaign of the
> "White" forces to crush Bolschevism" is still alive and well.
> >
> >Hardin showed that, in principle, communism could never
> >work. Marx failed to see this and millions died because
> >of his mistake.
>
> Well, I've never read "Hardin" but one author does not a binding refutation
> make. There are always other perspectives.
Hardin's paper *is* a classic -- my contention is that
it does not argue against humanistic socialism and it does not
argue for free-fall capitalism.
[snip]
"Yours in the details (where I fully expect to
find The Truth of The Whole)"
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<!THINK [SGML]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
