robert1 (09/09/82)
An open letter to the contributor of the note entitled "freudian b.s.", stemming from the recent Jo Jo conversation, which contains the following sequence: |----------------------------------------------------------------| | "In reply to those who believe that freudian crap, wherein we | | all are capable of such horrors, ... | |----------------------------------------------------------------| followed by |----------------------------------------------------------------| | "I think that any parent feels as I do, if not then they don't | | deserve to be a parent. | | | | 2) ****FLAME ON**** If ..." | |----------------------------------------------------------------| Flame on, indeed! I can see that it wasn't too brilliant when you made the initial remarks, and the rest wasn't much of an improvement. Oddly enough, I agree with you on some of the points later mentioned - unfair taxation, and the unreasonableness of the rape of a child. Surprised??? What I can't understand (or abide) is the narrowness of your viewpoint, and the subsequent judgement of a psychological theory that probes at man's basic drives/guilt, a topic that sensible men have debated REASONABLY for ages. I question the reasoning (logic, or the apparent lack thereof) behind your conclusion that Freud's theory is so much "crap". (I'm no Freudian, but here goes ...) On the contrary, recent study seems to indicate that our ancestors have passed on to us a legacy of violence (for hunting-gathering) and sexual motivations (for reproduction) that *had been* (pls note tense) successful, as evidenced by their survival, and our subsequent evolutionary presence. This behavior may even be physically resident, as Freud suggests, in the partitioning of our brain. Evolutionary leaps, the assemblage of "higher levels of reasoning" (e.g. symbolic manipulation, and social behavior) and the addition of (functionally) associated brain developments have not been proven, but they are hinted at by current study. For a very enlightening look at this, I heartily suggest "The Dragons of Eden," by Carl Sagan. But I wander from my original point - the validity of my argument is not the central message here, but the quantity of messages that completely lack an effort at using reason to approach a topic. How can you expect to make progress if you state your opinion (without basis) and then someone vehemently disagrees with you? What information is gained (or even *transferred*) in such an exchange??? I do not expect to remove flames from the net, nor is it my purpose; If I understand the usage of "flame", it seems to specify a hearty emotional content, which does not preclude the use of reason in stating one's opinion. Further, it does not remove the possibility of reasonable discussion, which may heighten one's understanding or appreciation for other viewpoints. I may not be converted to your ideas, but I may respect your opinion, gain new insight on the topic, or even be swayed by your arguments (discussion of religon is a good example here). Remember folks, opinions are great, but on the net you have the ability to use an editor, a convenience not available in public speech. If you choke or spasm, please don't broadcast it. Similarly, if you experience a mental seizure upon reading someone else's opinion that does not agree with your view of the world, stop and *think*. Try and cope with a new idea. Anyone can react, the trick is to reason. 'Nuff said. I've flamed enough, but hopefully not unREASONably. Anyone up for some intelligent conversation? (for ex. Eric could define what he meant by the above arguments, or a knowledgeable Freudian could give an interpretation of the current topic re Jo Jo's guilt - do we all think of such atrcities? does our social conscience repress these thoughts, only for us to have them surface, in dreams, for ex.??) Flame off, eh? Robert Duncan Bell Labs, Chicago (ihuxx!robert1)