HW>-> FR>His belief in an "Id" hasn't borne out but I think he was spot on
HW>-> when FR>it comes to the Ego and the subconcious.
HW>->
HW>KK> I agree with others that the discovery of the unconscious is one of
HW>-> the greatest discoveries of all time.  And that's the weirdest thing
HW>-> about it: something that's an ordinary, central part of our lives had
HW>-> to be discovered.  Sort of like a flashlight that's only conscious
HW>   It seems you may be suggesting Freud discovered the unconscious.
HW>This is not the case.  It's referred to in many places, e.g. Nietsche,
HW>and  (I'm told} Liebnitz.
Sure, we might expect that perceptive people would sometimes
wonder why they did the same stupid thing over and over, or
get tuned into the level on nonve5rbal communication, but I think
Freud did the most work on it, also trying to formalize discussion
about it.
The most interesting idea I've seen about the subconscious was
talked about 10 or 20 years ago by some brain researchers.
The name of Dr Barbara B. Brown comes to mind, but I can't
think of the name of the book.  The thesis was that much of what
we call subconscious is just the cortical hemisphere that doesn't
have a speech center.  There is some evidence from neuroscience
that we identify our 'self' with the hemisphere that talks.
Even though the two hemispheres are prfoundly well-connected,
stuff going on in the other hemisphere tends to be percieved
as 'other.'
HW>   Neither did F discover childhood sexuality.
Oh I'm sure he didn't, but he talked about it, and considered
it important.  There are a lot of things like that, that are
either not remembered consciously from childhood, or are blanked
out even though they are right in front of you.
Dostoyevsky (in "Notes from Underground") was a good example of
someone who knew there was an unconscious but didn't give it
a name or formal definition.  We humans almost can't talk about
something until it has a name.  And then, we run the risk of
'reifying' it, i.e., because it has a name, therefore it exists.
HW>   None of this is to say that I agree with Mr. Rice that F is to
HW>be discredited because, early in his career he believed that
HW>the nose played a key role in neurosis.   This is a kind of
HW>smear, or at any rate does not go to the points  {F's contribution}
HW>at issue.  Atheists of old said some pretty weird things too.
The context here is some recent scholarship that shows that
much of Freud's 'scientific' research with patients about
hysteria, etc., was not scientific at all.  Rather, Freud
became convinced about certain diagnoses for his patients'
problems, and if his patients disagreed, that was proof to
him that they were 'resistant' patients, and he would simply
browbeat them until they agreed.  Many of his early 'cures'
were not really cures.  But as you suggest, this does not
disprove the fact that Freud made profound discoveries
and contributions.  Einstein was wrong about some things,
but that does not 'prove' he was just some crank.
 * SLMR 2.1a *    Here at Intel, quality is Job 0.999997037582.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------