Greetings Economists, Rotating Bitch writes, much to the dismay of the anti-Freudians on the list, no doubt. :)
Doyle, Freud is so much blather as far as I'm concerned. Whatever contribution the concept of the unconscious might have, it's extremely hard to conceptualize anything for this time about what the 'unconscious' contributes in Freudian terms. That isn't to say the debate now about 'consciousness' (or attention as some like to call consciousness now) doesn't include a serious look at the mechanics of unconsciousness. Hence the interest in the cerebellum and it's role in control of the body. The rest of RB's comments lack what I think of as a framework that someone like Reddy provides for analyzing emotion structure. It's clear enough or compatible enough with my comments to be understood in Reddy's framework. The problem is the economic interpretation of emotions. For example Barkley Rosser on Max Sawicky's blog refers to neuroceconomics as a fad. But this really reflects a clash between rationalist anti-emotion ideology and the rise of a new sort of not so much a theory of emotion but a larger theory of 'consciousness'. I want very strongly to win against rationalists. They represent the bulwark that impedes inclusion of emotion structure into society as a mode of socialist liberation. They soto voice regulate emotion structure to deviate threats to their emotional regime, and the abysmal Clinton very aptly summarized how they like to deal with homos. But the real deal is not a debate online, it's the tools of production and how they support a sea change in human communications that matters. Computation is just so much empty typing unless the system of communication allows us to exchange images over text. Allows us to build a parallel emotion structure around language to fully endorse human potential. That is business, that is economics, that is science and technology, that is coming and that is where I will watch the rationalist flame out. thanks, Doyle
