说弗洛伊德,说了半天也没有出个贴,也是补习打紧。
我还是把自己提到的一些老列维论述弗洛伊德的片段,综汇一下阅读
计划纲目,凑成一个贴子。以期在咖啡里能展开些讨论,促进大家认
真阅读,总比整天价绕着华尔街大赌盘来得有趣。
列维-斯特劳斯在《忧郁的热带》第六章“一个人类学家的成长”中
说:
一九二零到三零年间,心理分析理论在法国流行。心理分析理论让我
觉得,我们所学的那些用来建构哲学论文,以及后来用来教书所使用
的静态的对立--理性的与反理性的;智识的与情感的;逻辑的与前
逻辑的--都只不过是一种不必要的智识游戏罢了。首先,在理性之
外,存在着一个更重要也更实在的范畴,即是有意义这个范畴,它是
理性的这个范畴的最高存有模式,但是我们的老师们却提都不提它。
其中原因应该是他们对柏格森的《论意识的直接素材》比对索绪尔的
《语言学通论》更有兴趣。
其实,弗洛伊德的著作使我明白对立的存在并不以我们在哲学课上所
学的那种方式存在,因为,正是那些表面上看来最情绪性的行为,最
不合理性的过程,还有那些所谓前逻辑的表现等等,才是最富有意义
的。扬弃柏格森式的信仰,扬弃那种把存有与事物都变成一堆废话,
以便使他们成为无法言说的那种绕圈子的辩词以后,我做出以下的结
论:存有与事物都可以维持其各自的价值,不必失去其清晰的轮廓,
那轮廓正是存有与事物之间借两者间的关系相互澄清界定之物,那轮
廓的存在,使存有与事物能够各具其可辨认了解的结构。知识的基础
不是弃绝一切关系,也不是以物易物;知识实际上只是选取那些真正
的面相性质,也就是选取那些和我的思想本身的性质吻合的性质特征
。原因并非象新康德派宣称的那样,并非因为我的思想会对所思之物
产生无法避免的影响;原因是我的思想本身也是事物之一。思想既然
是这个世界的一部分,也就具有这个世界所具有自然属性。
。。。
我开始熟悉弗洛伊德理论时,很自然地把他的理论看做是将地质学所
代表的方法应用到个人上。不论是地质学或心理分析,研究者最初都
发现自己面对着看来完全无法了解的现象;为了掌握、挖掘一个非常
复杂的现象的要素,研究者都必须具备很细腻的性质,像敏感、直觉
和品味等等。即使如此,在那些看似无法理解的一团现象里面所找出
来的秩序,既不能是临时权宜性的,也不能是偶然任意性的。地质学
家所研究的历史和心理分析家所研究的历史相象,而和历史学家所研
究的历史不同,前两者都是要把物质宇宙或心灵宇宙的某些基本特征
投射到时间的层面上,很象活人画(tableau vivant,由活人化妆扮
演的静态画面)那样。可以把活人画的比喻更往前推一步:那种称为
“字谜”的游戏是个简单的好例子,玩法是把每一个动作都解释成是
某些永恒不变的真理在时间的过程中展现的结果,其中的具体面貌,
测字谜者认为会在道德的层面上重现出来,但是在别的行业中,那些
都称为法则或学说。在这些例子中,美学兴趣兴起的结果都直接导致
知识的获得。
(有时间我把英文版,或法文版都敲敲,以澄清一些语意.)
马克思主义的方法和地质学及心理分析的方法相同(此处指的心理分
析专指弗洛伊德所讲的心理分析)。这三门学问都证明,了解乃是把
一种事实化约成另外一种;证明真实的事实常常不是最显而易见的;
证明真理的本质早已存在于它小心翼翼地要维特其不可捉摸性本身。
这三门学问都要面对同一个问题,即感觉与理性之间的关系问题,而
三者的目标也都一样:想达到一种超级理性主义,把感觉与理性整合
起来,同时又不使两者失去其各自原有的一切性质特征。
。。。
现实与经验之间的过渡过程是一种非延续性的、断裂处处的过程;为
了掌握现实,得先将经验排斥在外,然后再把经验重新整合进一个不
带任何感性情绪的客观综合体里。
&
这些段落我一直揣摩不已,象听一个海外来人讲海底世界的传奇,隔
山如隔海,也只能这样。我再把一些重要的弗洛伊特的著作块集一下
,方便咖啡的计论,也备以后精读,笔记,有线可依。
Major works by Freud
* Studies on Hysteria (with Josef Breuer) (Studien über Hysterie, 1895)
* With Robert Fliess: The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887-1904, Publisher: Belknap Press, 1986, ISBN 0674154215
* The Interpretation of Dreams (Die Traumdeutung, 1899 [1900])
《梦的解析》
* The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens, 1901)
* Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie, 1905)
* Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious (Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten, 1905)
* Totem and Taboo (Totem und Tabu, 1913)
《图腾与禁忌》
* On Narcissism (Zur Einführung des Narzißmus, 1914)
《论自恋》
* Introductory Lectures into Psycho-analyze (Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Psychoanalyse, 1917)
《精神分析引论》
* Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Jenseits des Lustprinzips, 1920)
* The Ego and the Id (Das Ich und das Es, 1923)
《自我与本我》
* The Future of an Illusion (Die Zukunft einer Illusion, 1927)
* Civilization and Its Discontents (Das Unbehagen in der Kultur, 1930)
《文明及其不满》
* Moses and Monotheism (Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion, 1939)
* An Outline of Psycho-Analysis (Abriß der Psychoanalyse, 1940)
《精神分析概要》
* A Phylogenetic Fantasy: Overview of the Transference Neuroses translated by Axel Hoffer by Peter Hoffer, Harvard University Press
* On Creativity and the Unconscious: The Psychology of Art, Literature, Love, and Religion, Publisher: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009, ISBN 9780061718694.
《论潜意识与创作力》
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A5%BF%E6%A0%BC%E8%92%99%E5%BE%B7%C2%B7%E5%BC%97%E6%B4%9B%E4%BC%8A%E5%BE%B7
家里有一本《走向未来丛书》的直译英文弗氏著作选,里面也有不少
简明的概要,查了英文原版,还真有弗氏本人介入。
General Selection from the Works of Sigmund Freud
by Sigmund Freud; John Rickman
精神分析的起源与发展(1910)
论心理机能的两条原则(1911)
精神分析中无意识的注释(1912)
否定(1925)
一个普遍的病因公式(1895)
神经症发病机制的类型(1912)
本能及其变化(1915)
压抑(1915)
精神分析工作中遇到的一些性格类型(1915)
论自恋:导论(1914)
悲痛与抑郁(191x)
超越快乐原则(1920)
群体心理学与自我分析(1921)
自我与本我(1923)
这应该是最好的一本弗氏入门书籍吧?
- posted on 04/01/2009
看来这一线还是得XW跟xw聊,那就聊吧。象Beatles歌的一线。
A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
《精神分析引论》:
精神分析是治疗神经病的一种方法,也是研究心理功能技术之一。此
后,在此基础上形成了一种心理学理论,成为现代心理学的重要学派
之一,对心理学、医学、人类学乃至史学、文学艺术和哲学都发生了
不同程度的影响。
精神分析的要旨在于对这些失误的动作、梦、神经症等现象进行考察
与分析,进而揭开被压抑于意识之内的本能欲望,并给这种欲望找到
合理的途径,使其得到宣泄或满足,从而使精神疾病获得治疗。
此书可作为了解、研究弗洛伊德学说的入门性读物。虽然它成书于八
十多年前,但今天的读者仍能从中吸收到丰富的营养。该书在第一篇
《失误动作》中介绍了精神分析的失误动作观。作者认为,所谓的失
误动作绝非偶然,而是具有一定的意义。在第二篇《梦》中,作者讲
的是弗洛伊德本人有关梦的理论。第三篇《神经症通论》则阐明了精
神分析中有关神经症的理论与治疗技术,进一步探讨了精神分析心理
学基础原理。
同时,弗洛伊德根据自己的临床经验,逐渐揭开了神经病起源于心理
内部动机的矛盾。他把人的心理历程分为三层,上层为意识,中层为
前意识,底层为潜意识。三层意识说构成了他的深度心理学。
他认为,一个观念的意识是转瞬即逝的,但消逝了的观念在需要时可
以再次成为意识,他称其为前意识。至于潜意识的观念,是指遭受压
抑并被摒斥于意识领域之外的意识。如果要它重复进入意识,则往往
为病者所拒绝。所以,弗洛伊德认为,抵抗和压抑是同一历程的两个
方面。精神分析的目的就在于克服这种抵抗,把潜意识和欲望转化为
意识,以达到治疗精神病的目的。然而,这种抵抗是不容易制服的,
需要精神分析家的高度技巧。
我的一本谈读书的书中把此书与黑格尔的《精神现象学》,马克思的
《资本论》并提。还有《追忆似水年华》,《到灯塔去》。。
- posted on 04/01/2009
你老弟也太落伍啦。除了吹牛的,现在没什么人对弗洛伊德的东东感兴趣了。弗洛伊德不难理解,但通过法国玄学鬼们如斯特劳斯就显玄乎了。弗洛伊德确实想科学地研究潜意识,但是像那个年代的很多人一样,结果搞出来的更近于巫学。我最乐的就是看巴尔的摩的凶嘴曼肯直称弗洛伊德为“那一个维也纳庸医。”据文学评论家布鲁姆说,《释梦》作为德文散文,确是很不错的。
佛的影响,主要是文化上的。它是伴随着,推动着日益执迷于脐下三寸的文明漂移。当然,他对潜意识的关注,对心理探讨的结构approach,对现代研究还是有一定启发,in spite of 他本人的原始尝试。 - posted on 04/01/2009
象罔嫌寂寞,我就陪你说几句。反正今天是愚人节,讲错了权当笑话。说来话长,当初刚上大学时初生牛犊不怕虎,国内刚出现过几次弗洛伊德的大名,有一天我靠朋友把我带进图书馆,找到一本他的析梦,不知深浅,竟然对出版社工作的一位领导建议让我翻译出版,回答是,从政治上考虑,根本不可能。遂打消此念。结果我校的一位工农兵学员王宁同志也在闻风而动,并且锲而不舍,写出了一篇介绍性的文章,居然发表在刊物上。后来弗洛伊德成了显学,几乎每家报刊都有介绍。因为据说这是第一篇国内相关学术文章,王也有了学术资本,日后做起北大教授。
这弗学还真是挺有趣的,而且极容易灵活运用。比如说,你如果相信他的部分理论和分析,当你今天上网看到近日有关聂绀弩的文章中涉及章诒和与周颖,你就会心地笑了,想那章诒和定是暗恋老聂所以才和周过不去。这样的理论分析,未必有多准确和深刻,但至少比恶搞要有根有据。正因为能够如此放之四海,所以才能保持显学的地位。不知我说对了没有。 - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/01/2009
我也来三陪::-)
我比朱老师有志向多了, 小学时就读了弗洛伊德 ,荣格,索尔绪,还有好多, 名字都记不得了,我最喜欢荣格。我老爹的书我都读, 我妈说我吃书不吃饭。 我爹给研究生出的考题先让我做, 结果我比他的研究生分高多了, 他说我一定不要上文科, 不然就是糟蹋时间。
可我现在一个字也记不得了,只记得有一次和一个清华的建筑系学生去香山樱桃沟,聊起了索尔绪, 聊什么也不记得了。
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/01/2009
这咖啡真是才子才女俱乐部,让我等老朽进来一看,就如到了裸体海滩,赏心悦目,自惭形秽。
- posted on 04/02/2009
弗洛伊德荣格都是陈年老货了。只是因为中共当政之初的三十年里心理学在中国不存在,就象经济学不存在一样,所以弗洛伊德荣格八十年代在大陆中国火过一阵,只不过是因为当时的年轻人 didn't know better, 他们觉得这就是西方思想的精华。那时的时髦青年们都言必称弗洛伊德荣格,且不知这些早已是过气的理论。
他们这些理论只不过是想用科学方法研究心理现象的一种努力,但心理现象是一个非常复杂综合的过程,涉及意识、思维这些即使在今天也无法用科学方法来严格表述研究的问题,弗洛伊德用梦、性来描述解释人的心理行为在当时可能是一种进步,现在却没有任何科学上的意义。正如燃素以太之类的理论,过时了就没有任何价值了。如果今天再搬出他们的理论来说事就有些好笑了。
当然把他们的思想作为人类的思想文化史来读可能仍然有意思。可以了解他们的思想是如何对当时的文化艺术造成影响的。记得当年看英格丽·褒曼的某些黑白电影,看达利画,都让我联想到弗洛伊德关于梦理论对艺术的影响。 - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/02/2009
July wrote:
我比朱老师有志向多了, 小学时就读了弗洛伊德 ,荣格,索尔绪,还有好多, 名字都记不得了,
索绪尔?:-)
有一次国内一个朋友让我替他打电话到“底律特”联系点事,楞了几秒种才醒过闷来。:-) - posted on 04/02/2009
啥子思想叫落伍,啥子理论叫过时?现在有人主动承认对毛泽东思想感兴趣么? 但它不还照样指引十三亿人民继续前进?何况心理学是纯粹关于人的学问,比先知那个纯粹经济学还要玄,既然两种截然相对的经济理论可以获得诺贝尔,又如何能把弗洛伊德一棍子打死?当然你要说他错了,很容易,一篇《梦的解析》大部头里挑几个错别字,几个typo,或者几个不严密的推论,都叫错误,但这并不能否认弗洛伊德的最根本的贡献。
先不扯到性,反正那个也扯不清:) 单说潜意识,现在基本是公认的人类学概念。如果你拒不承认,没关系,有人专门利用你的潜意识,来从你口袋掏钱。等到你买了不该买的东西,花了不该花的冤枉钱,你就晓得弗洛伊德们不全是吃素的了。
人是善变的,即便你今天戳到他的软肋,他明天醒来也可以幡然悔悟。在学术界用有限个体试验证明不出来的理论,并不表明它缺乏实际应用的成功。想想毛泽东思想,再想想被推到二十年的柏林墙,现在为啥又把马克思抬出来,批倒批臭的《资本论》在德国又卖得脱销? 先扯这么多,改天接着举例子。晚上有空的先读读这篇,思想先转一下弯:))
The Next Thinker: The Return of Karl Marx
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1997/10/20/1997_10_20_248_TNY_CARDS_000379653 - posted on 04/02/2009
老瓦 wrote:
啥子思想叫落伍,啥子理论叫过时?现在有人主动承认对毛泽东思想感兴趣么? 但它不还照样指引十三亿人民向前进?何况心理学是纯粹关于人的学问,比先知那个纯粹经济学还要玄,既然两种截然相对的经济理论可以获得诺贝尔,又如何能把弗洛伊德一棍子打死?当然你要说他错了,很容易,一篇《梦的解析》大部头里挑几个错别字,几个typo,或者几个不严密的推论,都叫错误,但这并不能否认弗洛伊德的最根本的贡献。
毛泽东思想照样指引十三亿人民向前进?没讲笑话?有两种截然相对的经济理论可以获得诺贝尔?指出来看看?谁说要把弗洛伊德一棍子打死?你不打他已经死挺了。说弗洛伊德的东东是巫学,并不是“一篇《梦的解析》大部头里挑几个错别字,几个typo,或者几个不严密的推论,都叫错误”。他的基本贡献,我已经指出了。
先不扯到性,反正那个也扯不清:) 单说潜意识,现在基本是公认的人类学概念。如果你拒不承认,没关系,有人专门利用你的潜意识,来从你口袋掏钱。等到你买了不该买的东西,花了不该花的冤枉钱,你就晓得弗洛伊德们不全是吃素的了。
潜意识不是弗洛伊德发现的,就像唯物论和阶级斗争不是马克思发现的。
人是善变的,即便你今天戳到他的软肋,他明天醒来也可以幡然悔悟。在学术界用有限个体试验证明不出来的理论,并不表明它缺乏实际应用的成功。想想毛泽东思想,再想想被推到二十年的柏林墙,现在为啥又把马克思抬出来,《资本论》在德国还卖得脱销? 先扯这么多,改天接着举例子。晚上有空的先读读这篇,思想先转一下弯:
当理论没能提供科学解释机制,你并不能建立所谓“实际应用的成功”和该理论的关系。求雨偶然成功,并不证实求雨理论。在欧洲,马克思的命运向来比在美国好。马克思栽在哪里,他的贡献在哪里,像我们这些在理论堆里滚出来的人是比较清楚的。顺便,那个Ha-joon Chang在剑桥的一个导师据说是马克思主义经济学家。Chang本人并不是马克思主义者,他只是对不切实际的自由意志论经济教条反感而已。
比较马克思和佛洛伊德,佛洛伊德死得更硬挺一点。他们两个都误以为自己的研究建立在科学的基础上,提出了决定论的宏伟理论。但两人都失败了。当然这并不等于说两者的努力全白费了。
The Next Thinker: The Return of Karl Marx
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1997/10/20/1997_10_20_248_TNY_CARDS_000379653 - posted on 04/02/2009
哈,是的,只要土地制度不变动,中国的政治基础仍然是由毛同志奠定的(当然也可以说他是抄袭朱元璋或秦始皇的:))
又不是半决赛在欧洲,决赛在美国举行,人家那边的比赛结果就不算数了?:))马克思主义当然有严重漏洞,比如对劳动时间和风险的认识,但这并不掩盖他指出的不可河蟹的社会矛盾。同样,弗洛伊德也是个二道贩子,甚至性爱万能说也不是他的原创,但是他本人改变了整个人类对心理认识的看法。
这不是一次求雨的成功,而是颠覆了整个世纪的消费商业运动。弗洛伊德的侄儿(他老婆玛莎那边的)Edward Barneys,几乎可以说是他的衣钵传人。当然Barneys更多的是应用了他的概念和分析法,从而引导了整个美国的公关行业。一直想花点时间八卦这位传人,不想被提前揭露了,有空就去网上搜索吧:)) - posted on 04/02/2009
touche wrote:
有两种截然相对的经济理论可以获得诺贝尔?指出来看看?
哦,忘了这个,首先声明我用的是虚拟语气哈,不是现在完成式:))
http://www.amazon.com/Public-Finance-Choice-Contrasting-Visions/dp/0262024624
Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting Visions of the State (CESifo Book Series) [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)
Buchannan同学是诺奖得主,Musgrave同学是下一诺奖的有力竞争者。MIT的经济学教授的评价是"Two towering pillars of 20th century public economics examine the deep foundations of their own thought and their common subject. Who could resist the chance to eavesdrop on their reflections? Certainly not anyone who cares about the role of government in modern society." 所有说他俩是张飞打岳飞,大战三百会合不分胜负,也未尝不可:)
- posted on 04/02/2009
老瓦 wrote:
哈,是的,只要土地制度不变动,中国的政治基础仍然是由毛同志奠定的(当然也可以说他是抄袭朱元璋或秦始皇的:))
看你那个逻辑,只要人们身上还长毛,就是毛同志的基因。;)
又不是半决赛在欧洲,决赛在美国举行,人家那边的比赛结果就不算数了?:))马克思主义当然有严重漏洞,比如对劳动时间和风险的认识,但这并不掩盖他指出的不可河蟹的社会矛盾。同样,弗洛伊德也是个二道贩子,甚至性爱万能说也不是他的原创,但是他本人改变了整个人类对心理认识的看法。
其实呢,是这么一回事。给马克思主义坑了的国家人们恨马克思主义;没给坑的,就想玩火。人都是很贱的,你应该知道。马克思可能在西欧香一点,到了东欧就不一样了。
不要给佛老乱栽赃,他老儿和“性爱万能说”无关。
这不是一次求雨的成功,而是颠覆了整个世纪的消费商业运动。弗洛伊德的侄儿(他老婆玛莎那边的)Edward Barneys,几乎可以说是他的衣钵传人。当然Barneys更多的是应用了他的概念和分析法,从而引导了整个美国的公关行业。一直想花点时间八卦这位传人,不想被提前揭露了,有空就去网上搜索吧:))
没听说过,也不感兴趣。是公关行业还是烟花行业?;) - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/02/2009
哈哈,xw还是聊聊荣格的炼金术吧, 我对想长生不老的人感兴趣,老活着多累啊,我当时喜欢雍正皇帝, 很考察了一番他的死因是否与炼金术有关。 - posted on 04/02/2009
Oops。还没拿奖的,就不能说拿奖的。没听说过酒杯和嘴唇之间相隔永恒? ;) 我的一位教授,是新自由主义制度经济学公共选择集体行为研究的重磅人物,极有或诺奖可能。但是死了,就没戏了。诺奖是不追认的。
诺奖获得者们有意识形态分歧。但诺奖都是因具体研究而得。这些研究,就是意识形态不同者也能承认其贡献。也就是说,诺奖不是为意识形态而颁的。克鲁格曼是个铁杆自由派,但是诺奖是授给他的国际贸易方面的研究。和其自由主义无关。
概念澄清:
Liberalism, 自由主义。
Libertarianism,自由意志论,古典自由主义。
Neo-liberalism,新自由主义,和Libertarianism几乎是一码事。
Confused? Yeah babe.
老瓦 wrote:
哦,忘了这个,首先声明我用的是虚拟语气哈,不是现在完成式:))
http://www.amazon.com/Public-Finance-Choice-Contrasting-Visions/dp/0262024624 Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting Visions of the State (CESifo Book Series) [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)
Buchannan同学是诺奖得主,Musgrave同学是下一诺奖的有力竞争者。MIT的经济学教授的评价是"Two towering pillars of 20th century public economics examine the deep foundations of their own thought and their common subject. Who could resist the chance to eavesdrop on their reflections? Certainly not anyone who cares about the role of government in modern society." 所有说他俩是张飞打岳飞,大战三百会合不分胜负,也未尝不可:)
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/02/2009
不要嘲笑毛思想,尽管不是原创。马克思可以借,毛也可以借,朱元璋是文盲,毛是诗人,这就是差别。
touche不要引这么多名词术语来唬人,我看要拯救自身的话,都抵不过libido, 若要拯救全人类,又都赶不上liberation army:))
借用令胡冲的话,touche同学越来越有anti-common sense的倾向,难怪越来越少了趣味:)
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/02/2009
哈哈,高。
老瓦 wrote:我看要拯救自身的话,都抵不过libido, 若要拯救全人类,又都赶不上liberation army:))
- posted on 04/02/2009
差矣。你也应该有足够的阅世经验了。利比多不过像火山那样冲动几下,快来快去。没有钱必多,如何能长治久安?从这个角度讲,老马还是必老佛强。唯物论比唯性论更脚踏实地。
我读过一个对晚年佛洛伊德的采访,那时候老头已生咽喉癌。佛的晚年已绝口不谈利比多,爱欲,性之类的东西。他那时候关注的是死和死的冲动。而当时年轻的赖赫(Wilhelm Reich),则满嘴是色欲。评论家说,any wonder? ;)
注:赖赫曾经把纳粹法西斯运动当作集体性高潮。多少年之后王小波把六四的天安门广场也作类似比。
老瓦 wrote:
我看要拯救自身的话,都抵不过libido
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/02/2009
xw wrote:
看来这一线还是得XW跟xw聊,那就聊吧。象Beatles歌的一线。
男儿有泪不轻弹。瞧,xw一滴泪,这线就海了去了。 - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/02/2009
老弗的libido好像是比较广义的 --- life force. 可以囊括性必多,钱必多甚至死
必多。
无非就是:获取生存资源,繁殖后代,为后代获取生存资源,保存自我,不断发展壮大,同时排除
异己. 有时把自己也当异己排除了。
touche wrote:
- posted on 04/02/2009
Susan wrote:
老弗的libido好像是比较广义的 --- life force. 可以囊括性必多,钱必多甚至死
必多。
无非就是:获取生存资源,繁殖后代,为后代获取生存资源,保存自我,不断发展壮大,同时排除
异己. 有时把自己也当异己排除了。
这个话题有趣,进化过程的结果是任何有利后代繁衍的特征被发扬光大,所以我坚信现存动物的性能力比百万年前的高,但进化过程对生育期之后的个体来说是无利甚至有害的,因为生育期之后的个体死的越早对后代繁衍越有利(在资源匮乏的前提之下)。所以进化过程对长寿有反作用。或者就是“把自己也当异己排除了“?
苏三很深刻!:-)
可惜生育期不是在生命的晚期,否则动物就能随着进化而越来越长寿啦!
- posted on 04/03/2009
不好意思,诸君讨论得如此热闹。我说嘛,老弗怎负众望?
今天我休息一天,在图书馆读弗洛伊德,《论潜意识与创作力》,很
好的一本书。尤其是谈及战争的一篇,还有魔鬼附身的解说,带拉丁
语的。“梦与心灵感应”,弗氏倒是坦承自己没有经历。“三个匣子
的主题思想”,很开启人,让我联想到中国民间“三姐”的传奇。还有
残酷的童话,还有歌德《诗与真》中童年乱砸东西。而“对处女的禁忌”
提到处女模的“禁忌”史与心理禁忌,还真让我明白了一些生理与心理
学的道理。
《精神分析引论》里“梦”编解释《麦克白》的历史渊源以及内中角
色,很启发人。里面第六讲提出两点假设,一,“梦不是一种躯体现
象,乃是一种心理现象”;二,“一个梦者具有他不知道自己具有的
知识”。
目的和一切科学研究目的相同--就是求得对这些现象的了解,确立
各个现象之间的关系,最后,设法对它们加以控制。
第二个假设证据?原来得自催眠现象的研究。催眠师使人进行睡眠状
态之中,使他有种种幻觉,醒来,他对催眠时所历一无所知。
《梦的解析》有点感觉了,宏篇巨作啊,以前读着淡而无味。《图腾
与禁忌》还得重读,一直没读进去。弗氏有一篇“令人害怕的”东西
,整个就是语言学的,没有德语和拉丁语,弗氏的不少著作不容易深
解。看来,弗著可以好好读一阵子了。
谢谢诸君的意见!到此我心才归弗境。家里找了找,还找到一本弗氏
传记,高宣扬编著。
- posted on 04/03/2009
xw wrote:
《精神分析引论》里“梦”编解释《麦克白》的历史渊源以及内中角
色,很启发人。里面第六讲提出两点假设,一,“梦不是一种躯体现
象,乃是一种心理现象”;二,“一个梦者具有他不知道自己具有的
知识”。
这是每个人都能体验的常识。梦里的情景对梦中的主体或自我意识来说都是新鲜的,不可预知的,而且我们常常对自己梦中的情景感到意外,甚至受到惊吓。也就是说,自我意识只是脑的一部分,它对脑中负责制造那些未知情景的部分是无知的,“一个梦者具有他不知道自己具有的知识”,这是弗先生发明的什么深刻的理论,还是人人都有过体验的常识?:-)
事实上,对这种所谓 awareness 的研究是可以在 psychophysical 意义下进行实验的,比如关于 blindsight 的实验。自我意识对脑中某些区域的活动是无知的,这不仅是常识,也可以科学地验证。心理学上升到脑科学之前基本上就是伪科学,虽然心理学多年的努力值得尊敬。
“梦不是一种躯体现象,乃是一种心理现象”,听起来更是常识了。不过梦游是什么现象呢?:-)
- posted on 04/03/2009
gz wrote:
xw wrote:这是每个人都能体验的常识。梦里的情景对梦中的主体或自我意识来说都是新鲜的,不可预知的,而且我们常常对自己梦中的情景感到意外,甚至受到惊吓。也就是说,自我意识只是脑的一部分,它对脑中负责制造那些未知情景的部分是无知的,“一个梦者具有他不知道自己具有的知识”,这是弗先生发明的什么深刻的理论,还是人人都有过体验的常识?:-)
《精神分析引论》里“梦”编解释《麦克白》的历史渊源以及内中角
色,很启发人。里面第六讲提出两点假设,一,“梦不是一种躯体现
象,乃是一种心理现象”;二,“一个梦者具有他不知道自己具有的
知识”。
梦从躯体现象到心理现象,也还是弗的假设,当然,是源于亚里斯多
德对梦的解析,在亚那里还是很不成体系,故而弗有差使做。
亚氏那里,估计说梦是躯体现象吧。你说的梦游,确实是个异。我家
小贝前两天梦游一回,其根源是我们下午爬山,晚上回来忘查身上的
Ticks,故而我在他梦着了翻身给他查Ticks,身体翻动得厉害,过了
几分钟后,就梦游过来了。他梦游中言语不清,也只有情绪,等他情
绪定了,再抱回自己床上睡,就平静了。
我这还是头一回见识人梦游,以前只是听说,自己还梦游过一次呢。
&
第二点假设估计就是老虻说的巫术,我觉得更象是潜意识,源于催眠
术。从这一条假设走下去,就很接近东方哲学,尤其是成熟的印度瑜
伽哲学,催眠状态,潜意识状态,也很通诗歌艺术灵感状态,一种特
殊综合的状态,不知道那些艺术家吃药,是不是为达此种状态?
我想咖啡里可以开诚布公地讨论这些问题。那一线说海子的问题,我
觉得应该深层讨论,弗洛伊德,还有印度哲学,不可避免。
事实上,对这种所谓 awareness 的研究是可以在 psychophysical 意义下进行实验的,比如关于 blindsight 的实验。自我意识对脑中某些区域的活动是无知的,这不仅是常识,也可以科学地验证。心理学上升到脑科学之前基本上就是伪科学,虽然心理学多年的努力值得尊敬。
这个有点机械唯物,任何科学也有科学发生的道理。就是爱因斯坦搞
相对论,即使是狭义的,也要爱娃,也要力比多,哪里那么单纯?
“梦不是一种躯体现象,乃是一种心理现象”,听起来更是常识了。不过梦游是什么现象呢?:-)
得来全不容易,要考虑到历史前提。
- posted on 04/03/2009
苏三小妹说的既对也不对。弗洛伊德的力必多概念要比性宽,但他的注意力确实在性的压抑上面。也可以说,性是生命力生活力的突出表现。弗洛伊德的弟子们,就觉得师爷对性的关注是太狭窄了。从容格,阿德勒起,一直到新精神分析学派的郝奈,佛洛姆等等。
Life force的观念,源来已久,并且带有形而上,神秘的特点。海克尔,斯宾塞等都有这观念。书本华的“意志”其实也是这个东东,甚至马克思的生产力概念都有生命力的影子。
生命力的特点,就是不屈不挠的自我扩张。
Susan wrote:
老弗的libido好像是比较广义的 --- life force. 可以囊括性必多,钱必多甚至死
必多。
无非就是:获取生存资源,繁殖后代,为后代获取生存资源,保存自我,不断发展壮大,同时排除
异己. 有时把自己也当异己排除了。
touche wrote:
- posted on 04/03/2009
老氓此言差矣,苏三说话出了彩,就是看得透彻,与看得辽阔的差异:))
touche wrote:
苏三小妹说的既对也不对。弗洛伊德的力必多概念要比性宽,但他的注意力确实在性的压抑上面。也可以说,性是生命力生活力的突出表现。弗洛伊德的弟子们,就觉得师爷对性的关注是太狭窄了。从容格,阿德勒起,一直到新精神分析学派的郝奈,佛洛姆等等。
Life force的观念,源来已久,并且带有形而上,神秘的特点。海克尔,斯宾塞等都有这观念。书本华的“意志”其实也是这个东东,甚至马克思的生产力概念都有生命力的影子。
生命力的特点,就是不屈不挠的自我扩张。
Susan wrote:
老弗的libido好像是比较广义的 --- life force. 可以囊括性必多,钱必多甚至死
必多。
无非就是:获取生存资源,繁殖后代,为后代获取生存资源,保存自我,不断发展壮大,同时排除
异己. 有时把自己也当异己排除了。
touche wrote:
- posted on 04/03/2009
我们是在谈弗洛伊德,如果苏三比弗洛伊德透彻,那是另一码事了,是不是?
跟你说过了,老佛越到晚年,就越不想生,越来越想死了,别说性了。
你没有说出来的话是:如果力必多解决好了,就不用写诗了,更不用出什么诗集了,对不对? ;)
老瓦 wrote:
老氓此言差矣,苏三说话出了彩,就是看得透彻,与看得辽阔的差异:))
touche wrote:
苏三小妹说的既对也不对。弗洛伊德的力必多概念要比性宽,但他的注意力确实在性的压抑上面。也可以说,性是生命力生活力的突出表现。弗洛伊德的弟子们,就觉得师爷对性的关注是太狭窄了。从容格,阿德勒起,一直到新精神分析学派的郝奈,佛洛姆等等。
Life force的观念,源来已久,并且带有形而上,神秘的特点。海克尔,斯宾塞等都有这观念。书本华的“意志”其实也是这个东东,甚至马克思的生产力概念都有生命力的影子。
生命力的特点,就是不屈不挠的自我扩张。
Susan wrote:
老弗的libido好像是比较广义的 --- life force. 可以囊括性必多,钱必多甚至死
必多。
无非就是:获取生存资源,繁殖后代,为后代获取生存资源,保存自我,不断发展壮大,同时排除
异己. 有时把自己也当异己排除了。
touche wrote:
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/03/2009
切,我没说出来的话是,为了拯救全人类,我要准备参军了:)
记得一本书把弗洛伊德列入历史上最具影响力的一百人,其中扯到精神分析,说未来的科学家可能会证实力比多的作用将小于弗洛伊德的判断,但也将大于弗洛伊德以前人们的认识水平。
所以说任何贬低或拔高,都还有待更新理论的浮出,但我奇怪数据收集技术已经如此发达了,心理学实验居然还未出现突飞猛进,让一帮老爷们在这里吃一百年前的老本,那多半是人类本身出现了新的严重问题:) - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/03/2009
老瓦 wrote:
记得一本书把弗洛伊德列入历史上最具影响力的一百人,其中扯到精神分析,说未来的科学家可能会证实力比多的作用将小于弗洛伊德的判断,但也将大于弗洛伊德以前人们的认识水平。
既然说到科学,那么任何事物都要首先严格定义,然后才能谈它的作用。力比多既不是一种客观的物质或能量,也不是一个可以科学定义的概念(类似中国人的“精气神“吧),而且根本无法定量测量,它的作用的大小从何谈起? - posted on 04/03/2009
老瓦 wrote:
记得一本书把弗洛伊德列入历史上最具影响力的一百人,其中扯到精神分析,说未来的科学家可能会证实力比多的作用将小于弗洛伊德的判断,但也将大于弗洛伊德以前人们的认识水平。
影响性和科学性不是一码事。在最具影响力的百人单里,默罕默德不是第一,就是名列前十。目前的科学家,有把力比多当码事的吗?
所以说任何贬低或拔高,都还有待更新理论的浮出,但我奇怪数据收集技术已经如此发达了,心理学实验居然还未出现突飞猛进,让一帮老爷们在这里吃一百年前的老本,那多半是人类本身出现了新的严重问题:)
不奇怪,如果人这个东西容易研究的话,也就是说容易给钉死,那做人还有什么意思?心理学的进步,在于实验心理学。在临床心理学方面,进步表现在用更现实的概念描述心理现实,也就是说,摒弃过去的离奇观念。佛洛伊德的学说已基本死了,只有心理学外行和文学轻年老年们还在胡侃。
鉴于本秃是个很公平的人,我就指出一件事。我是对这方面的研究前沿挺关注的。几年前在《科学美国人》研究心理专刊中注意到有研究者声称“佛洛伊德的潜意识说是把金钥匙”,我把此公的研究报告仔细一读,没有发现有和佛洛伊德学说的任何具体联系。想想大概是高层次的启发吧。 ;)
要了解当代心理学,所谓“行为经济学”是一个热点。实际上是用科学手段披露人的经济行为中的很多非理性心理特点。日后我可以介绍一点。但是它是和佛氏巫学毫无干系的。
- posted on 04/03/2009
为了诸位的方便,我找了有关联的访谈和交流:
这一段最扼要,几乎就像我写出来的:;)
**************************************************************
Mind: Do you regard Freud as a scientist?
Kandel: His aim was clearly scientific, but his methods weren’t. Until 1894 Freud tried to develop a neurobiological view of the mental apparatus. But because of the limited knowledge of his time, he finally gave up on that idea. Although Freud kept on working in a fairly systematic way, his ideas lacked an empirical foundation. But to my mind, the problems with psychoanalysis arose with those who came later. Freud’s followers should have tried to verify at least some of Freud’s postulates using empirical methods. Instead they treated him as if he were a guru. Nevertheless, we have profited from Freudian ideas. For example, he bridged the gap between mental disease and mental health, seeing the same unconscious mechanisms at work in both.
**************************************************************
Speaking of Memory: Q&A with Neuroscientist Eric Kandel
MIND interviews the Nobel laureate about Freud's legacy, memory's foibles and the potential of drugs that boost brainpower
By Steve Ayan
Over the past 50 years Nobel laureate Eric R. Kandel has shaped our understanding of the basic mechanisms of memory through his studies of the primitive sea slug Aplysia [see “Eric Kandel: From Mind to Brain and Back Again,” by David Dobbs, Scientific American Mind; October/November 2007]. First a student of history and literature and later a psychiatrist, the Vienna-born Columbia University professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator has emerged as one of the most prominent brain researchers of the century.
Scientific American Mind: Do you see the humanities and natural sciences as separate realms, or can they be unified?
Eric Kandel: I think they can—and the biology of the mind is one of several possible bridges between them. But unfortunately, today people from different academic backgrounds do not meet and talk to each other so much. This was once quite different. For example, in Vienna at the end of the 19th century, uncovering the unconscious was a project shared by scientists, artists and writers alike. People such as [writer and doctor] Arthur Schnitzler, [painters] Gustav Klimt and Egon Schiele, and [artist, poet and playwright] Oskar Kokoschka exchanged their ideas with scientists and other intellectuals and scientists in literary circles.
Mind: Do you regard Freud as a scientist?
Kandel: His aim was clearly scientific, but his methods weren’t. Until 1894 Freud tried to develop a neurobiological view of the mental apparatus. But because of the limited knowledge of his time, he finally gave up on that idea. Although Freud kept on working in a fairly systematic way, his ideas lacked an empirical foundation. But to my mind, the problems with psychoanalysis arose with those who came later. Freud’s followers should have tried to verify at least some of Freud’s postulates using empirical methods. Instead they treated him as if he were a guru. Nevertheless, we have profited from Freudian ideas. For example, he bridged the gap between mental disease and mental health, seeing the same unconscious mechanisms at work in both.
Mind: Why is the unconscious so fascinating to us?
Kandel: Because 80 to 90 percent of what we do is unconscious. When we speak, we use presumably correct grammatical structures while paying little if any conscious attention to this grammar. And we act in lots of other ways without having the slightest clue what we are actually doing. Much of our urge to understand the unconscious arises from the spooky feeling that there is something within us governing our actions.
Mind: How does the modern understanding of unconscious processes differ from Freud’s?
Kandel: Freud first proposed one fundamental driving force, the libido, and later, in response to the horrors of the First World War, added the “death impulse” Thanatos. These are very broad categories that brain research cannot really deal with. But Freud did not think there was a unified unconscious. Instead he came up with a topology of different forms: the implicit unconscious representing motor and perceptual skills, the preconscious filled with material we can readily become aware of, and the dynamic unconscious in which, for example, instinctive impulses are suppressed. With modern neuroimaging techniques, we are finally able to discover what the brain is doing during conscious or different forms of unconscious processing.
Mind: We tend to think of memory as a kind of library that holds a record of events and facts that can be retrieved as needed. Is this an accurate metaphor?
Kandel: No, memory is not like that at all. Human memory reinvents itself all the time. Every time you remember something, you modify it a little bit, in part dependent on the context in which you recall it. That is because the brain’s storage is not as exact as written text. It is always a mixture of many facades of the past event: images, pictures, feelings, words, facts and fiction—a “re-collection” in the true sense.
Mind: Have you ever found it hard to imagine yourself, your personal identity and memory as made up of molecules and the firing of neurons?
Kandel: No, I like this idea. Some people think that finding out about the biological mechanisms behind our mental world takes the mystery out of it. I never felt that way. When you find out how Austrian expressionist Kokoschka scraped the paint onto the canvas with his finger, does that knowledge make his art less interesting? I don’t think so. It is the same with the mind and body. Knowing that the heart is a muscular pump pushing the blood in our vessels doesn’t make the heart less wonderful either.
Mind: How do you think brain research techniques might seep into everyday life? Do you think the brains of suspects in court or even job applicants might one day be routinely screened?
Kandel: That should not be allowed in a democratic society. And the same holds true for DNA or fingerprints or any other kind of private biological information. The government has no right to that information. But this should not prevent us from developing powerful methods to study the mind and brain. Everything can be misused. It is society’s job to ensure that it is not.
Mind: What do you think about brain enhancement, an area that is quite familiar to you?
Kandel: Yes, I helped start a company to try to develop drugs that can improve memory. At the moment there is nothing that has been proved both effective and safe in people for that purpose, although many companies are working toward this goal. Cognitive enhancement should be good for people who have trouble learning and remembering, say, because they are old. I would not recommend that my grandchildren take such drugs, however. There is a much better way for them to improve their minds—and that is to study!
Mind: Do you think brain research will change our culture and the way we think of ourselves?
Kandel: Slowly but surely it will. It is beginning to do so, as the notion that every mental act comes from the brain becomes common knowledge. The mere fact that most people are no longer [mind-brain] dualists is a major cultural advance.
Mind: One last question: If you were granted one wish, what would it be?
Kandel: I would like to know how some memories persist forever. How do you remember your first love experience for the rest of your life? Neuroscientist Kausik Si, then a postdoctoral fellow in my lab, and I discovered a protein called CPEB that has the very interesting characteristic of self-perpetuation. That might be a clue to how memory is sustained over long periods. But we don’t know for sure yet.
Note: This article was originally published with the title, "Speaking of Memory".
+++
Freud Returns
Neuroscientists are finding that their biological descriptions of the brain may fit together best when integrated by psychological theories Freud sketched a century ago
By Mark Solms
For the first half of the 1900s, the ideas of Sigmund Freud dominated explanations of how the human mind works. His basic proposition was that our motivations remain largely hidden in our unconscious minds. Moreover, they are actively withheld from consciousness by a repressive force. The executive apparatus of the mind (the ego) rejects any unconscious drives (the id) that might prompt behavior that would be incompatible with our civilized conception of ourselves. This repression is necessary because the drives express themselves in unconstrained passions, childish fantasies, and sexual and aggressive urges.
+++
Letter to Scientific American
Peter J. Swales, author of numerous pioneering essays exploring the early history of psychoanalysis, is unimpressed by Mark Solms’s article in the April 2004 issue of Scientific American, “Freud Returns”. Here we reproduce an unpublished letter to Scientific American which questions Mark Solms’s competence in the field of Freud scholarship, together with an addendum and postscript.
Letters to the Editors
Scientific American
May 10, 2004
In reproducing a diagram from an 1895 manuscript, Mark Solms endeavours to portray Sigmund Freud as both percipient and prescient by drawing special attention to the "contact barriers" between neurons whose action he there supposedly "predicted". Solms elaborates: "Two years later English physiologist Charles Sherrington discovered such gaps and named them synapses”. In truth, however, the separating surfaces between nerve cells had been recognized by the histologist Ramón y Cajal as early as 1888, then reported on by him in 1892; and the significance of these had, by the year 1895, been much discussed - by, among others, Auguste Forel, Wilhelm His, Wilhelm Waldeyer, and Freud's former teacher Sigmund Exner.
In 1897, while Sherrington was at work on a text on the nervous system requested of him by the physiologist Sir Michael Foster (himself a proponent of such gaps between neurons), he felt a need for a convenient term -- whereupon Foster obliged him by consulting the Euripidean scholar Arthur W. Verrall, who proposed the word "synapse" (from the Greek for 'clasp'). Thus, Sherrington made no such discovery, and is to be credited only with having solicited a name; and Freud, in 1895, was being in no way percipient nor prescient but, as a neuropathologist by profession, was simply deferring to the then current understanding of the nervous system.*
Solms's tendentiousness in seeking to rehabilitate Freud's ideas is betrayed not simply by his distortion of the history of neurology but his cavalier disregard of modern Freud scholarship. He asserts that "Freud's early experiments with cocaine -- mainly on himself -- convinced him that the libido must have a specific neurochemical foundation" -- one that the author now tries to identify with the systemic action of the neurotransmitter, dopamine. But this is precisely what I contended as long ago as 1983 in an essay entitled "Freud, Cocaine, and Sexual Chemistry: The Role of Cocaine in Freud's Conception of the Libido", reprinted in 1989 in a 4-volume Routledge anthology of enduring critical assessments of Freud and his work.
Mine, though, is a thesis routinely maligned by Freud-partisans as lacking any evidence and purely speculative in nature. It is truly ironical, then, that in now espousing such a viewpoint Solms should be controverting the received Freudian wisdom -- also that in doing so, both in a 2002 essay and in his recent article, he should eschew any citation of my heretical 1983 essay and proffer his assertion as though its truth were something manifestly self-evident (also, by bibliographic omission, as a novel product of his own intellectual labours). My object in 1983 was to show how Freud's toxicological libido theory, rather than having been clinically derived, had functioned as an a priori principle in all of his psychological investigations. Would only that, like me, Solms were now to demonstrate some grasp of why it should be that, epistemically, such a prepossession serves to vitiate all of Freud's subsequent clinical and hermeneutic presentations.
*[Addendum, June 30, 2004]
Albeit an understanding still then contested in that some -- most prominently, Camillo Golgi -- would continue very ardently to advocate a reticular theory of brain structure that was only finally to be overthrown more than a half century later. Evidently Solms went astray because, rather than consulting the authoritative texts, he would seem to have relied instead on the neuromanticist volume of his colleague, Joseph LeDoux: Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are (2002). There LeDoux portrays Freud -- rashly, many would say -- as a champion of the Cajal/Waldeyer neuron doctrine and notes how their cell theory "figured prominently" in his 1895 manuscript, wherein he "introduced the term contact barriers to describe the points where neurons abut…" (pp. 38-39). (Freud's text, dubbed by his editors Project for a Scientific Psychology, was published only posthumously, in 1950.) Citing the work of G. Shepherd, LeDoux continues: "Two years after Freud wrote his Project, Sir Charles Sherrington proposed a different term for the connections between neurons… He was probably unaware [sic!] of Freud's contact barriers, and chose to call the gaps synapses, derived from the Greek word meaning to clasp, connect, or join" (p. 39). Thus, it would certainly seem that, in crediting Sherrington with an 1897 "discover[y]", Solms has simply bastardized what his associate LeDoux had had to say -- of course, to Freud's great advantage.
Peter J. Swales
Sources:
Fielding H. Garrison, An Introduction to the History of Medicine, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1929 (pp. 525-526, 542-543); Garrison's History of Neurology revised and enlarged by Lawrence C. McHenry, Jr., Charles C. Thomas, Springfield IL, 1969 (p. 205); cf. Malcolm Macmillan, The Completed Arc: Freud Evaluated, MIT Press. Cambridge MA, 1997 (pp. 178-184). Garrison (ibid); McHenry, Jr. (ibid). Sigmund Freud: Critical Assessments, edited by Laurence Spurling, Routledge, NY, 1989 (Vol. I, pp. 273-302). Peter Gay, Freud: A Life for Our Time, W.W. Norton, NY, 1988 (p. 749); Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Subject to Biography, Harvard University Press. 1998 (pp. 118-119); Nathan G. Hale, Jr., "Freud's Critics: A Critical Look", Partisan Review. LXVI, 1999 (p. 239). Mark Solms, "An Introduction to the Neuroscientific Works of Freud", in: The Pre-Psychoanalytic Writings of Sigmund Freud, edited by Getrudis van der Vijver & Filip Geerardyn, Karnac, London, 2002 (pp. 25-26).
Postscript [May 20, 2004]
Cave: asinus ad lyram asinum fricat
In his article entitled “Freud Returns”, published under the rubric “Neuroscience” in the May 2004 issue of Scientific American (pp. 82-88), author Mark Solms ends a paragraph (p. 88) with the following two sentences:
In the words of J. Allan Hobson, a renowned sleep researcher and Harvard Medical School psychiatrist, the renewed interest in Freud is little more than unhelpful “retrofitting” of modern data into an antiquated theoretical framework. But as Panksepp said in a 2002 interview with Newsweek magazine, for neuroscientists who are enthusiastic about the reconciliation of neurology and psychiatry, “it is not a matter of proving Freud right or wrong, but of finishing the job.”
Earlier in his article (p. 84, cf. pp. 87, 88), Solms has identified Jaak Panksepp as one of a number of “experts in contemporary behavioral neuroscience” and a member of the editorial advisory board of “the successful journal” Neuro-Psychoanalysis (sic!).
In a recent article entitled “Reply to Domhoff (2004): Dream Research in the Court of Public Opinion”, published in the journal Dreaming (Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 18-20) as a rejoinder to G. William Domhoff’s essay, “Why Did Empirical Dream Researchers Reject Freud? A Critique of Historical Claims by Mark Solms” (ibid., pp. 3-17), Solms ends by again quoting Panksepp (p. 20):
I, no less than Domhoff, would like to develop a new theory of dreams, but I do not want to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. As Panksepp put it in a recent interview with Newsweek magazine, “it is not a matter of proving Freud right or wrong, but of finishing the job” (“What Freud Got Right,” 2002, p. 51).
The cited article in the magazine Newsweek, “What Freud Got Right: His theories, long discredited, are finding support from neurologists using modern brain imaging” (November 11, 2002, pp. 50-51) -- an article authored by journalist Fred Guterl, and featured under the rubric “Psychology” -- ends with the following paragraph:
Freud's psychological map may have been flawed in many ways, but it also happens to be the most coherent and, from the standpoint of individual experience, meaningful theory of the mind there is. “Freud should be placed in the same category as Darwin, who lived before the discovery of genes,” says Panksepp. “Freud gave as a vision of a mental apparatus. We need to talk about it, develop it, test it.” Perhaps it's not a matter of proving Freud wrong or right, but of finishing the job.
A suitably attentive reader discovers, then, that Solms has twice misattributed his quotation while at the same time garbling it. Besides his transposition of “wrong or right”, he has omitted the qualifier, “Perhaps”, and hence converted a statement hedged by possibility and uncertainty into something apodictic. But. even more significantly, he has misattributed authorship of the sentence and thereby imbued it with some greater authority and greater gravity -- after all, a categorical statement from the mouth of a neuroscientist bears a great deal more weight than could ever the all-too-glib punchline of a news-magazine hack.
Whether or not Dr. Panksepp might mind that a colleague has represented him in print as having, without heed, bought futures is here of no concern -- after all, Panksepp is a member of the “Neuroscientific Advisory Board” of the so-called Arnold Pfeffer Center for Neuro-Psychoanalysis [sic!] of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, of which Solms is himself Director. Asinus asinum fricat. Far more important is the matter of Solms’s appalling lack of scholarly rigour. Asinus ad lyram.
In a biographical blurb accompanying Solms's article in the current issue of Scientific American, he is heralded as “editor and translator of the forthcoming four-volume series The Complete Neuroscientific Works of Sigmund Freud (Karnac Books)” (p. 87). Solms’s mangling and misattribution, twice, of a quoted statement -- also, for that matter, his misattribution of a discovery to physiologist Charles Sherrington, in 1897, in such a way as to render Sigmund Freud, in 1895, both percipient and prescient; and his non-attribution of certain radical assertions about Freud, cocaine, and the libido to an heretical 1983 essay by yours truly (vide: the undersigned’s Letter to the Editors of Scientific American dated May 10, 2004) -- do not augur well for the field of serious Freud-studies, to say the very least. Are we soon gonna learn that Solms has misattributed to Freud what is in fact the work of another author? Cave asinum.
Yours very truly,
Peter J. Swales
- posted on 04/03/2009
gz wrote:
老瓦 wrote:既然说到科学,那么任何事物都要首先严格定义,然后才能谈它的作用。力比多既不是一种客观的物质或能量,也不是一个可以科学定义的概念(类似中国人的“精气神“吧),而且根本无法定量测量,它的作用的大小从何谈起?
记得一本书把弗洛伊德列入历史上最具影响力的一百人,其中扯到精神分析,说未来的科学家可能会证实力比多的作用将小于弗洛伊德的判断,但也将大于弗洛伊德以前人们的认识水平。
嘿,你在企图用解剖学来否认心理学:) 这么说吧,未来的心理学家如果发现另一种能量,不妨定义为“多比力”,那么就完全彻底推翻老弗的学说了:)) - posted on 04/03/2009
这一线大家谈得都好,尤其是老虻,批评中有理有据,颇受启发。但
我有一点期望,就是能否更具体?比如咖啡里草叶是临床医生,而土
干是研究嗅神经(还有性欲什么的?),玛雅我知道是接触过许多治
精神分析治疗的,苦瓜上回也说看医生。我知道女性不喜欢太高屋筑
瓴地谈,能否让她们也说说话,就是具体一些的。
咱也孤陋寡闻,大学读弗洛伊德,真还读不懂,关健是那么大一本梦
的解析,读不进去。说少女杜拉能唤发性欲,但对我一点不解趣。直
到去了维也纳,发现那里的少女确实太美,故而想起弗洛伊德这个老
头子。以前受一句话影响,说弗学是资产阶级吃饱了撑的东西,看来
很不对。心理学看问题,对中国文化中的许多东西能看得更明白,比
如那一线的江青、王光美问题,慈禧太后问题,还有老虻提到的王小
波还是Wilhelm Reich的性学解说。这些都很启发。。。但就是不能
内抑。叔本华的意志论,尼采的权力欲,弗氏的性本能都是一种逼近
“本能”的方式。这些更象哲学,当然,科学外衣更美。
不能单纯用科学就来否定。当然,老列维还是谈科学发生学,或者说
地质学吧?
说一件事来打趣,话说波普尔用不能证伪证明弗氏心理分析为伪科学
,可是老虻与gz似乎将之证伪。这么说,弗学更真是科学,因为能被
证伪。
证毕!
- posted on 04/03/2009
嘿,你在企图用解剖学来否认心理学:) 这么说吧,未来的心理学家如果发现另一种能量,不妨定义为“多比力”,那么就完全彻底推翻老弗的学说了:))
“心理学家如果发现另一种能量“?老瓦开玩笑那吧?老弗的追随者们连力比多到底是力还是能量还没搞清呢。让人想起 FLG 的李大师把光年当时间的笑话。
解剖学可否认不了心理学,将来更发展了的脑科学却能把心理学彻底消灭。现在心理学都在两极分化呢,或者往脑科学或医学靠拢,或者往社会学靠拢。
一个同事讲的真事,一个新生入学后雄心勃勃要学分子生物学。结果数理化都不好,学不下去,就改学经典生物学,结果还是学不下去,最后只好改学心理学,混张文凭了事。:-) - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 04/03/2009
说一件事来打趣,话说波普尔用不能证伪证明弗氏心理分析为伪科学
,可是老虻与gz似乎将之证伪。这么说,弗学更真是科学,因为能被
证伪。
我说弗氏心理分析是伪科学正是因为“力鼻窦“之类似是而非的滑稽概念不可证伪,却并不是我能证伪他的理论。说我能证伪“力鼻窦“,咱识抬举,可那也太抬举弗氏心理分析啦!:-) - posted on 05/29/2009
咱天生也鲁顿。及至读到梦的解析的末章才能明了老列维说的地质学
思维。这神经,不分明是火山爆发,而梦,就当了沉睡的火山,而潜
意识,就是死火山。死火山偶尔一爆,便爆发出许多潜底的信息,这
不正是地质学,矿物学所陈述?别的断层,板块什么的,都象神话传
说中的Titan大地的骨肉。
这么理解地质学的思维,看来还是老列维对,一点也不玄。
“释梦”的中间有些乱,但首尾都是很好的思想。弗是大思想家,这
点是肯定的,贵在思想的一贯与独立性。弗分析战争与死亡,便有自
己的亲子在前线,弗分析人类学与神经症,都有其独立性。除了释梦
,精神分析导论的中间部分很高明。弗后期的一本本小册子都含有思
想的独创性。弗一生思想,一日一根雪茄烟,至死不息。
读弗的文章,当然可见其文化素养。这个除歌德外,在德语世界不多
见,在西方文艺界都难得有几个能望其项背。这个不止是语言,科学
与艺术各领域。虽然,其足迹相比达尔文有限了些。
touche wrote:
你老弟也太落伍啦。除了吹牛的,现在没什么人对弗洛伊德的东东感兴趣了。弗洛伊德不难理解,但通过法国玄学鬼们如斯特劳斯就显玄乎了。弗洛伊德确实想科学地研究潜意识,但是像那个年代的很多人一样,结果搞出来的更近于巫学。我最乐的就是看巴尔的摩的凶嘴曼肯直称弗洛伊德为“那一个维也纳庸医。”据文学评论家布鲁姆说,《释梦》作为德文散文,确是很不错的。
佛的影响,主要是文化上的。它是伴随着,推动着日益执迷于脐下三寸的文明漂移。当然,他对潜意识的关注,对心理探讨的结构approach,对现代研究还是有一定启发,in spite of 他本人的原始尝试。
潜意识是他在释梦后期提出来的,以后一发不可收拾。比如说潜意识
筑造人的性格,这一点就不会太错。
- posted on 05/29/2009
July wrote:
哈哈,xw还是聊聊荣格的炼金术吧, 我对想长生不老的人感兴趣,老活着多累啊,我当时喜欢雍正皇帝, 很考察了一番他的死因是否与炼金术有关。
前一段时间读Sylvia Brown,愈读愈觉得里面的编造。就读西赛罗的
论迷信,觉得巫术还是不好的,象老列维这一线说的:
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1186690213
看来容格还得缓来,有时间多读点马克思。有人说咱思想肤浅,我发
现在社会领域,不明政治经济,终究是浅薄的。比如那陈水扁的款项
,都汇到海外来了,吕秀莲说是政府正常开支。开什么支?谁受惠?
这些都不明了还谈什么深刻。十几年前倒遇到一位陈水扁的人,是陈
水扁在当总统前,他跟我学滑雪,是陈派到海外弄学位的。以后陈发
迹了,就失去了联系。还有我以前提及的老革命,就不多说了吧。
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/14/2010
在咖啡豆谈弗洛伊德。我就在想,老弗为什么一直独衷于俄狄浦斯情结。现在想想,
他的母亲估计是很漂亮的。他的妻子,依他说很漂亮,但我觉得不够。至少不够维
也纳级。那多么性欲强的儿子与漂亮妈妈是怎么相处的呢?是不是都恨不得想早早
杀了爸爸?唉,咱怎么也象玛雅一样胡思乱想。
但他妻子Martha能让他一生不放纵性,还跟他生那么多孩子(多是他学派要人),早
先还跟他一起吸可卡因。知己是肯定的。
我还是要说,维也纳的小姑娘太美,老弗爷也是精神发泄:)
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/14/2010
这情结不就是老男人和小男人争资源嘛。非他独衷,每个文明都有这个问题,处理手段各不相同。
不过西方文化对这个特别忌讳,可能因为集体处理机制不够有效。西人说每个男人都梦见过和自己的母亲睡觉。你们这些男人有没有梦见过呢?诚实的回答这个问题,如果你们都没有,只能说明中国文化对这个问题的处理机制很有效。 - posted on 06/14/2010
那要看母亲漂亮不漂亮,当然,性感也行。
我们都是劳动母亲。说实在话,真没有象你预想的梦见过,我是说我。在我青春最
欲望的时候,偶尔和母亲共床而睡,些许斜念,但不是在梦里。
不过,我这个人梦的能力不行。也许,是忆梦的能力不够。
杀父之仇倒还有记忆,但都无关于性。许是专制、自由、权力。
小麦 wrote:
这情结不就是老男人和小男人争资源嘛。非他独衷,每个文明都有这个问题,处理手段各不相同。
不过西方文化对这个特别忌讳,可能因为集体处理机制不够有效。西人说每个男人都梦见过和自己的母亲睡觉。你们这些男人有没有梦见过呢?诚实的回答这个问题,如果你们都没有,只能说明中国文化对这个问题的处理机制很有效。
老弗是自幼就观赏父母作爱,被赶出屋子了。又听说西人多有此经历,我也记不得
了。我们从小玩性游戏,都是小朋友之间。同性间,sibling间,偶尔与动物间也有
。这个我承认。
&
老弗爷说维也纳少女们整天就是胡思乱想性的游戏,这个我问过玛雅,她不答,你
谈谈中国女性是不是也一样呢?我问的一些人都说不。
但我知道,漂亮一些的女性,性感些的,估计性幻想会强些。
Your turn, wheat!
- posted on 06/14/2010
我预想的是中国男人很少梦见。当然现在全球化了,都西化了,大概会有越来越多的中国男人会梦见了。
原因是因为以前有次读闻一多的书,他提到文明发轫时的兄妹相交时,特地对读者解释了一番,大意是我们现在(几十年前)觉得兄妹交合不可思议,但现在(几十年前)的人类学研究证明这种事情是存在的。也就是说,当年国门初启,中国人对兄妹母子父女这类事在文化心理上是很陌生的(不是说中国事实上没有乱伦)。汉人的神话传说的建构里刻意去掉了乱伦这类故事,所以兄妹交合的故事只保留在了民间口头传说或很多国内少数民族的传说中。例如伏羲女娲的兄妹夫妻身份在文字记载中就只强调夫妻。伏羲和老爹打架(闻一多考证),后来根本提也不提。中国文化里,凡是不能解释的性交(不能排除很多大概是乱伦),统统冠之以天或图腾(同样代表天)。文化心理建构上首先阉掉了乱伦这块,作用机制是人无法对自己看不见的东西产生疑问。接着礼法建制上严格规定了各类角色的社会关系,母子有严格的礼法关系约束,父子有孝来调节。性想象的可能性被压到最低。
在这样基础上发展起来的中国的父权体系,父亲的地位和权威是很牢固的。雪莱因为当爹的不给他钱,就去信大骂老爹,这种事,在西化以前的中国是很罕见的。吴虞当街大骂老父,只能发生在五四那种时代。所以五四运动,那些年轻男人喊名教吃人,其实就是说儿子被爹吃了。新文化运动,从某种意义上来说,是中国小男人向老男人夺权从而产生资源再分配的政治运动。
胡扯啊。谁要较真是谁自己的损失。
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/14/2010
弗洛伊德对“性”的描述,与其说是发现,还不如说是定义。 - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/14/2010
再看了一遍这线,原来是还要学习马克思理论啊?
抱歉,俺进错线了。现在就退出。 - Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/14/2010
唉,我问你的问题呢?理论家可就是高明。
你谈Oedipus comples, 我真诚地回了你。你能否谈谈Electra complex.
结合亲身体验。我就不用你用外国人的例来哄人了。
老弗爷有一篇谈贞节的论文,就从Electra complex出发。
当然他谈得不多,男的:)。
小麦 wrote:
我预想的是中国男人很少梦见。当然现在全球化了,都西化了,大概会有越来越多的中国男人会梦见了。
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/14/2010
xw wrote:
你谈Oedipus comples, 我真诚地回了你。你能否谈谈Electra complex.
我又不能代表中国女性,我又不是全国妇联。
玛雅不答你,你就来哄我答。我好心跟你个帖子咧,没料想你是要打兔子。
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/15/2010
我也很想听听男人聊聊贞节的问题.
有娶了非处女的男人, 聊聊自己的内心真正的感受...
看来是没人会回我的话的了, 这比小麦问的:对你妈有过性幻想吗?还要命些.
xw wrote:
老弗爷有一篇谈贞节的论文,就从Electra complex出发。
当然他谈得不多,男的:)。
小麦 wrote:
我预想的是中国男人很少梦见。当然现在全球化了,都西化了,大概会有越来越多的中国男人会梦见了。
- posted on 06/15/2010
xw wrote:
老弗爷有一篇谈贞节的论文,就从Electra complex出发。
听说过弗洛伊德的恋父(Electra complex)恋母(Oedipus complex)情结,不知他老人家是如何将它们跟贞节联系在一起的,xw是否也讲讲?
Carl Jung算老弗爷的长江后浪了,Jung又是如何解读贞节的呢?记得Morris West的小说“World is made of Glass"试图讲解Jung是如何解析书中病人(an nameless woman Jung cited his "Memoirs, Dreams, Reflection")的心魔的。
"THE WORLD IS MADE OF GLASS is a story of love, sexual obsession, murder, the mysterious infection of guilt and the absolute need of forgiveness as a condition of human sanity. The narrative is founded on fact: a case history recorded in the autobiography of Carl Gustav Jung, one of the pioneers of modern psychiatry. His account is brief, undated and curiously cryptic: "A lady came into my office. She refused to give her name..she wished to have only one consultation. What she had to communicate to me was a confession. Some twenty years ago, she had committed a murder......The impact of his encounter with the unnamed woman - mature, beautiful, depraved, yet crying out for healing and pardon - had an explosive effect on Jung and brought him very close to a total breakdown." - posted on 06/15/2010
”贞节“在咖啡好像是老话题了。翻翻看:
自然笔记:贞节(xw) http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1267807038
对贞操意识产生的一个见解 (朱老剑客) http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1186624624 人类的性禁忌(1 ) (稿源:七彩谷)http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1080952409 谈情说色 (maya) http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1054671540 牌坊 (alexandra) http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1097500164 Jelinek Jelinek Jelinek LUST LUST LUST (maya) http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1241790690暗香 wrote:
我也很想听听男人聊聊贞节的问题.
有娶了非处女的男人, 聊聊自己的内心真正的感受...
看来是没人会回我的话的了, 这比小麦问的:对你妈有过性幻想吗?还要命些.
xw wrote:
老弗爷有一篇谈贞节的论文,就从Electra complex出发。
当然他谈得不多,男的:)。
小麦 wrote:
我预想的是中国男人很少梦见。当然现在全球化了,都西化了,大概会有越来越多的中国男人会梦见了。
- Re: 聊聊弗洛伊德posted on 06/16/2010
谢谢Rita.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- xw
- #1 xw
- #2 touche
- #3 zxd
- #4 July
- #5 zxd
- #6 gz
- #7 gz
- #8 老瓦
- #9 touche
- #10 老瓦
- #11 老瓦
- #12 touche
- #13 July
- #14 touche
- #15 老瓦
- #16 moab
- #17 touche
- #18 tugan
- #19 Susan
- #20 gz
- #21 xw
- #22 gz
- #23 xw
- #24 touche
- #25 老瓦
- #26 touche
- #27 老瓦
- #28 gz
- #29 touche
- #30 touche
- #31 老瓦
- #32 xw
- #33 gz
- #34 gz
- #35 xw
- #36 xw
- #37 xw
- #38 小麦
- #39 xw
- #40 小麦
- #41 疑问
- #42 疑问
- #43 xw
- #44 小麦
- #45 暗香
- #46 rzp
- #47 rzp
- #48 暗香
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation