Of course Michael....and, we both know that psych was and is a 'soft science'....how else could it be?
So, the same 'rules' do not and can not apply here. I was being a little ironic when I shared the true story about how Sigie came up with some of his 'theories'...I forget the lad's name, but it is available. And, what may surprize you even more Michael is that I am so skeptical as to not even accept "...the amount of evidence that a scientist, or a deep thinker, would require before coming to a conclusion presented as fact." Others here know this about me...I am skeptical of skeptics...along with anyone who pretends to know what is fact. On Apr 10, 6:58 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > "..."Penis envy," "Oedipus complex," etc - none of these are > > operationalized terms, and none had any actual evidence. ..." - MB > > > As I seem to remember, the notion of Oedipus, while ancient, was > > founded upon Freud's observations of some sessions with one young > > boy.... > > Orn, I am not sure what you are arguing here. Are you saying that > Freud's observations of a boy count as evidence? If so, I agree, in > the narrow, technical sense of the word. Any fact that cuts in favor > of a given proposition is evidence for that proposition. But I was > being a little loose with language. What I meant by "evidence" was > something like large-scale, controlled studies. When I said "any > actual evidence," I meant something more like "the amount of evidence > that a scientist, or a deep thinker, would require before coming to a > conclusion presented as fact." > > On Apr 10, 4:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "..."Penis envy," "Oedipus complex," etc - none of these are > > operationalized terms, and none had any actual evidence. ..." - MB > > > As I seem to remember, the notion of Oedipus, while ancient, was > > founded upon Freud's observations of some sessions with one young > > boy.... > > > On Apr 9, 2:00 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I've heard that Freud has been "debunked" but I'm unclear as to how. > > > > Freud has been debunked in the sense that he presented his views as > > > products of scientific inquiry, and people trusted those views because > > > they deemed them to be the products of scientific inquiry. > > > > Now, it has been realized that Freud wasn't doing any science. He was > > > an observer, a philsopher, a thinker. His theories are fine for > > > reading for pleasure, or as a means to prompt deep thinking. But > > > Freud wasn't doing any science. He was essentially writing novels. > > > He made observations in the real world and told stories about what > > > they meant. > > > > "Penis envy," "Oedipus complex," etc - none of these are > > > operationalized terms, and none had any actual evidence. They were, > > > and potentially still are, interesting. And surely some of Freud's > > > views have turned out to be, and more will turn out to be, correct. > > > Just as some of his views have turned out to be, and more will turn > > > out to be, incorrect. > > > > One psychology paper contrasted the Cartesian vs. Spinozan view of > > > belief. If I remember correctly from the paper, Descartes said that > > > any proposition is received neutrally, then tested for its truth or > > > falsity. Spinoza, on the other hand, said that any proposition is > > > believed to be true by default, whereupon (very quickly) it is then > > > tested for truth or falsity by the human mind. The paper presented a > > > series of studies presenting evidence that the Spinozan view was > > > right. But does that make Spinoza any smarter than Descartes? No. > > > They were both philosophizing. They weren't presenting any scientific > > > evidence for their views. Likewise, if Freud turns out to be right on > > > a particular view, that doesn't vindicate him. The point is, he > > > wasn't doing science. He was doing literature and philosophy. Which > > > is perfectly fine when you're up front about it, but problematic when > > > it's cloaked as science. > > > > On Apr 9, 2:15 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "... On Apr 9, 10:05 am, frantheman <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: ..." > > > > > > Sexual relationships with children are immoral because they are > > > > > always an abuse of power and trust. > > > > > This is quite possibly absolutely true but the fact that this is a > > > > relatively new mindset in our species must also be considered in the > > > > gestalt. As with all new mindsets, it is accompanied by a great deal > > > > of emotionalism which, as I have said, clouds the mind and the ability > > > > to perceive and think rationally, which is the only means of achieving > > > > a healthy resolution of any perceived problem. My only disclaimer is > > > > that I can conceive of a healthy sexual relationship between parent > > > > and child but the odds against it are astronomical. > > > > > > We should be aware of some important distinctions here. Children are > > > > > not asexual, they have their own appropriate sexuality. There is a > > > > > childish sexual aspect for children to relationships, particularly to > > > > > their parents and those they love, and especially regarding their > > > > > mothers. There seems to be little doubt that nursing/breast feeding > > > > > has a sexual component for infants and small children. This is natural > > > > > and inevitable, as children experience holistically and completely - > > > > > growing up and learning has much to do with developing capacities to > > > > > differentiate. > > > > > Very well put. Good thinking Francis. It is recognizing and > > > > accepting such aspects of the issue that can lead to further insight > > > > and eventually solution. > > > > > > I've referred to Freud here before and, even if you don't want to go > > > > > all the way with him, there seems to be little doubt that the process > > > > > of maturing/developing/growing up has a deep sexual vector. > > > > > I've heard that Freud has been "debunked" but I'm unclear as to how. > > > > Personally I think he was right on the mark with regard human > > > > sexuality. All one needs do is look about to see how much sex and > > > > sexuality permeates our society. Even our religious symbols are > > > > sexual icons. Sex inundates advertising. The admen have found that > > > > sex literally sells anything -- food, toiletries, clothing, behavior > > > > -- even sex. What I don't understand is how, in the midst of all this > > > > overt and covert sexuality, many still cling to outmoded and > > > > emotionally disturbed perspectives, burying heads collectively and > > > > impliedly in the sands of ignorance. What can it be but their own > > > > denied feelings, tendencies and inclinations in this respect. > > > > > > The vital distinction is that children have a right to their own > > > > > natural sexual > > > > > development (which includes inquisitive investigation of their own > > > > > bodies and the bodies of others). On THEIR terms, and in the security > > > > > that adults will guide them, give them answers, show them limits and > > > > > not abuse their trust. I see the disappearance of a lot of prudery and > > > > > sexual repression in (western) society in the past half century as a > > > > > positive development - growing up in Ireland in the 60s, I never saw > > > > > my parents naked - my daughters' experience was different (and, I > > > > > believe, better), and it certainly helped me (and them) being > > > > > challenged by questions like, "Papa, why have you got a penis and I > > > > > don't?" :-) > > > > > I find yours to be a very enlightened and healthy perspective but then > > > > Irish minds in some ways have always seemed to have a deeper insight > > > > into the realities of human nature -- which may also explain why so > > > > many of them are Catholic. I've a bit of the old sod myself. > > > > > > The incest question is complex. I tend to see adult sexual > > > > > relationships between parents and children as deeply problematic, > > > > > because they seem to me to be distortions of the "normal" parent-child > > > > > relationship. > > > > > The question of incest is most certainly complex and where it overlaps > > > > with the parent-child relationship, the healthier path should be the > > > > proper one, yet I have questioned at times whether sex, just as every > > > > other aspect of parenting a child, should not be part of that > > > > relationship. As it is we mostly don't even discuss sex with our > > > > children and leave them to go out and find out what's what on their > > > > own which in turn brings up the sexual aspect of Lord of the Flies. > > > > > > The sexual urge and the urge for power (over others) are > > > > > very strong in human personalities and related to each other on many > > > > > levels.. Parent-child relationships have a large and important power > > > > > vector, which only works because it takes place within a context of > > > > > love and trust. But inequality of power is one of the most corrupting > > > > > things for any sexual relationship and such considerations raise major > > > > > problems for sexual relationships between adult parents and children. > > > > > Historically, taboos surrounding sexual relations between adult > > > > > siblings (or close degrees of consanguinity) had justifiable genetic > > > > > grounds. In a changed situation, where reliable contraception is > > > > > possible, many of these taboos seem to lose force. Still, power issues > > > > > within families should not be underestimated. > > > > > You're remarkably insightful today. Either that or you always have > > > > been and I'm just remarkable more aware today. But human beings are > > > > indeed highly sexual and political and where sex and power interplay > > > > with each other in any relationship, but especially in that between > > > > parent and child, disastrous results are more often than not the rule > > > > of the day. And when it's family politics -- well, that can result in > > > > human behavior at its worst. Early on I adopted the rule that if > > > > someone is family, that's a damned good reason to stay away from them > > > > and as a result I feel I'm more of myself than any parent or > > > > sibling. I was out on my own at fourteen and never looked back (till > > > > the last few years when I decided to write my memoirs.) > > > > > /e- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
