I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb: the Primal Scene is way
down the list of dodginess in Freud. Start with the concepts of Birth
Trauma and all things having to do with neonate cognition and object
relations. Then proceed to The Unconscious as a continuous state, then try
dream symbolism, then maybe The Universal Oedipus Complex, and Universal
(for women) Penis Envy ought to be in there some place. Oh, and the
Objectivity of the Analyst. And maybe the necessary persistence of
childhood trauma. All of which are either undemonstrable, demonstrably
untrue, or physiologically unlikely. Which leaves not a whole lot left
beyond the fee structure.
Be it noted that where on occasion Freud gets it right it still isn't
science, it's a lucky guess, like Lucretius' atoms.
It seems to me like a
>deliberate rhetorical ploy, an attempt to go even further out on a limb than
>Freud did in the dodgiest part of his own theory, the Primal Scene.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|