Perhaps I meant more obviously dodgy. You may or may not buy the other
things, but the Primal Scene, which depends on the universal occurrence of a
fairly avoidable (to most minds, unlikely) incident, must test the credulity
of all but the most fanatical adherent
Best wishes
Matthew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 14 July 2000 02:46
Subject: Re: why I don't like Kristeva
>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.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|