Absquatch wrote (and quoted):
*** Quote:
but I thought the title "Call of Cthulhooh" was a bit less dull and pompous than the above.
Oh, dear, didn't you appreciate my ironic reference to Northrop Frye? Or didn't you catch it, more like? ***
Mea curpa. I thought it was dull; it was actually Canadian.
*** Quote:
You obviously know little about psychology, but then you know little about science. Be warned: there are shocks in store.
A puzzling statement, as you could not possibly be aware of what I do or do not know about psychology or science. ***
I could draw conclusions from text:
*** To be clear, I do have great respect for Freud, though it may not seem so. He was a brave pioneer, a profound thinker, and he did the best he could with the materials and knowledge available to him. ***
He did his best to create a Kult. And succeeded. To launch a Crews missive (and you can't accuse
him of not knowing the texts):
*** Since the appearance of 'Analysis Terminable' in 1980, I had repeatedly made the same two-pronged argument: that Freud's scientific and ethical standards were abysmally low and that his brainchild was, and still is, a pseudoscience... Whereas the original objectors to 'Analysis Terminable' in 1980 had flatly denied my entire case against psychoanalysis, these recent statements mostly took the plaintive form of 'yes, but...' Although virtually all of my charges were conceded in one letter or another, each correspondent clung to some mitigating point that might justify the continuation of psychoanalytic business as usual... Step by step, we are learning that Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine--one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry... ***
Confessions of a Freud-Basher
*** The Freud wars are indeed over. (Just ask any research psychologist who isn’t also a psychoanalyst.)
***
Freud & Cocaine: An Exchange, NYRB, November 10, 2011
In the SCIence of psychology (as opposed to th' carny sideshow), Binet or Wundt did his best "with the materials and knowledge available." Compare Fraud with Chuck D. (i.e., the estimable Charles Darwin). CD knew nothing of genes or DNA, but he still laid the foundations of modern biology. Or SOME of 'em. Not that he ultimately mattered: Darwinism does not depend on Darwin. In Fraudeanism and Sharxism, Ziggy and Karl matter maximally. I think that's part of the appeal of those ideologies: they were invented by megalomaniac charlatans, so they're readily exploitable by later megalomaniacs and charlatans. As Crews'
Postmodern Pooh v. cleverly demonstrates. OK, THIS was aimed at Darwinists:
*** Renee Francis, who has "specialized in the application of scientific rigor to the study of children's literature", deploys sociobiology and biopoetics in a piece "Gene/Meme Covariation in Ashdown Forest: Pooh and the Consilience of Knowledge". ***
But part of what's silly about "the application of scientific rigor" to literature is that science is currently too feeble for the task. A short story is actually much more complex than a star. That's why science can say a LOT about stars and, at present, v. LITTLE about short stories (involving, as they do, deep'n'difficult topics like Language and the Brain).
*** So far as the latter goes, I will happily pit my knowledge of the subject--and particularly of its history--against yours or anyone's here. ***
Is that an allusion to science's murky'n'mephitic origins in Magic(k)...? If so, yes,
pace Dick D. (i.e., the egregious Richard Dawkins), the history of science is far from a simple matter of Truth vs Superstition, Reason vs Irrationality, Free Thought vs Authority, and Openness vs Obscurantism. Science is far from that NOW, as Dicky D. himself proves... But that doesn't justify support for CAS's know-nothingism:
*** 1. What I find most refreshing about CAS's perspective is its epistemological humility. Others would do well to emulate it. ***
Much as I like CAS's line as literature, I'm not sure it IS so humble to announce that "All human thought, all science, all religion, is the holding of a candle to the night of the universe." Not even sure it avoids self-refutation. CAS obviously thinks he understands the universe well enough to know humans can't understand it ("All humans are fools," said the human.) I'm reminded of what Comte said about stars:
*** On the subject of stars, all investigations which are not ultimately reducible to simple visual observations are ... necessarily denied to us. While we can conceive of the possibility of determining their shapes, their sizes, and their motions, we shall never be able by any means to study their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure ... Our knowledge concerning their gaseous envelopes is necessarily limited to their existence, size ... and refractive power, we shall not at all be able to determine their chemical composition or even their density... I regard any notion concerning the true mean temperature of the various stars as forever denied to us. ***
And it DOES seem obvious that you can never analyse something you can't touch or sample. But Comte was wrong and so, I suggest,'ll CAS prove to be. There may even be a hidden grandiosity'n'arrogance in CAS's dismissal of science: "Unlike YOU, I'm big and wise enough to know how small and ignorant I am."
*** Quote:
Can you name anyone who is wrong about EV'rything?
Once again, your irony meter needs adjusting. ***
Mea curpa.
*** As for your comments on literary criticism, above, I generally agree. Although, in the main, I also share your views on Marx and Freud, I cannot share the simplistic dismissal of every facet of their thought or intellect, as it's far too Manichean for me. That's a beat that almost everyone bleats to. ***
I like simplistic dismissal. Gives me more time for gay porn. And I like the line about Freud being both correct and original... but never at the same time. E.g., the subconscious is a fascinating and important topic, but you don't need Fraudeanism to tell you so.
*** As three of the unpublished New York Review correspondents put it, Freud proved once and for all that unconscious beliefs and emotions play a large role in our behavior; that the human mind is at once capable of the clearest distinctions and the most devious twists and that that mental illness stems in large part from an imbalance within the human being between real and ideal, between our rational and irrational selves, and between what we want to do and what we have to do. These and similar formulations were noteworthy for their high quotient of generality and vagueness, approaching, in freedom from determinate content, the perfect vacuum achieved by the historian and Freud apologist Peter Gay, who has characterized Freud's "central idea" as the proposition that 'every human is continuously, inextricably, involved with others...' It is hard to dispute any of these statements about 'humans', but it is also hard to see why they couldn't be credited as easily to Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, or Nietzsche--if not indeed to Jesus or St. Paul--as to Freud. Was it really Freud who first disclosed such commonplaces? ***
Confessions of a Freud-Basher
*** Both men [i.e. Fraud and Sharx] may have had a deleterious effect on our civilization... ***
Unpleasant example here from two Fraudeans who are "feminists and proud of it":
*** Bass and Davis now insist on the “compassionate†character of their book. Among accused parents, however, The Courage to Heal is known with good reason as The Courage to Hate. “First they steal everything else from you,†it says, “and then they want forgiveness too? Let them get their own…. It is insulting to suggest to any survivor that she should forgive the person who abused her.†Instead, the authors prescribe a cultivation of rage:
A little like priming the pump, you can do things that will get your anger started. Then, once you get the hang of it, it’ll begin to flow on its own…. You may dream of murder or castration. It can be pleasurable to fantasize such scenes in vivid detail. Wanting revenge is a natural impulse, a sane response. Let yourself imagine it to your heart’s content…. Suing your abuser and turning him in to the authorities are just two of the avenues open…. Another woman, abused by her grandfather, went to his deathbed and, in front of all the other relatives, angrily confronted him right there in the hospital. ***
Thanks for the Memories, Frederick Crews, NYRB, February 16, 1995
As I said to Radovarl: the Kult's "not a TRADITIONAL religion, but it's certainly retained all the ancient traditions of hypocrisy, manipulation and moneygrubbing." I'll add "and malevolence."
“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.†—
The Black Book of Gore Vidal.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Nov 11 | 04:13AM by treycelement.