There is also strangely PF-relevant (and
Zemblan-sounding) Russian tongtwister: "Karl u Klary ukral korally" (Karl stole
Klara's corals)...crown jewels?
Victor
Fet
I offer in return: SHUT UP THE SHUTTERS AND
SIT IN THE SHOP! (S K-B) where "she sells sea shells from the sea shore" ? (JM)
Stan Kelly-Bootle noted: ..." Elsewhere (Number 143) Horgan knocks
the Freudian postulates as confusing: " ... none more than his attempts to
identify recognizable reality through dreams. This has too often resulted in
efforts to create systematic interpretations of essentially inconsistent subject
matter. If there should be clinical usefulness in this process, it has nothing
to contribute to an artist's realization of his aesthetic impulse." He concludes
rhetorically with signs of more sympathy for Herr Doktor than I've encountered
with VN:"Was Freud himself more of an artist than a therapist? Were his insights
more like those of poetry than of science?"
Why do people return to such dated views on Freud
who is now, alas, also forgotten by most modern
psychoanalysts?
(I suggest that those who are annoyed simplified
and repetitious comments on Freud stop right here.)
S K-B, clinical psychoanalysis
is only possible if someone feels some kind of "transference" towards a
psychoanalyst ( be it love, hate, fear, admiration, depreciation). The "systematic interpretations of essentially inconsistent
subject matter" refers to a subject's idiosincratic field of
experience that constitute part of his unique symptom.
When I recognize an
ever-recurrent debunking of Freud I may find a pattern of repetition that
may be connected to this person's various, "inconsistent" signs
or expressions, before I can reach a "consistent" psychoanalytic
interpretation - which shall be completely useless if the person in
question is not my patient.
Were Freud's insights closer to poetry than to
science?
Freudian discoveries pertain to the vast domain of
language. When he described thought-processes as occurring incessantly, even
during sleep, he was proposing something very revolutionary at his time (
now we may agree, like Doyle's Dr.Watson, to what appears to
us as quite obvious).
Beside our conscious logic thoughts, there
are other kinds of thinking which occurr simultaneously -
and these are submitted to what Freud called the "primary process". It
is when a regression from word to image-presentation takes
place, following condensation(metaphor) and displacement
(metonimy). Isn't the ability to bring these
primitive, emotionally charged images, back to rational
thought/words, similar to what takes place in
inspired poetry?
Freud's visions may have been poetic, but he followed a
scientist's discipline to build his worlds and to develop
theories which influenced, although now dissolved in, the mainstream of our
modern thinking.
Jansy