On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Bruce Robinson wrote:
> Thus his objection to the Freud-Marx fusion is not that Freud has made no
> discoveries of value to psychology (e.g. the unconscious) but that (a) the
> two sets of ideas are incompatible at a fundamental level; (b) if Freud's
> valid discoveries were to be incorporated into a LSV-approved synthesis,
> their significance would be different from that attributed to them by Freud.
> So I think you're right that there is both an openness to incorporating
> other ideas that have a basis in 'empirical science' and a rejection of
> 'different readings of reality'.
So he is saying, then, that only when any two sets of ideas are rendered
compatible by some predetermined stance that exists outside those two sets
of ideas (objectivity, maybe?) can we appropriately value the
contributions of each? Until the "newcomer" can be translated into the
dominant (scientific) stance, their discoveries stand outside of (and can
pose no challenge to, or demand response from) what already has been
accepted as good psychology?
Sounds more conservative than revolutionary to me. Am I misreading
something here? (I am attending for the moment more to the accounts
being made of LSV than to what he himself said.)
--Alena
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:54 PST