Print

Print


From: Johanna Tabin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Subject: Re: FW: FW: neuropsychoanalysis
 

Dear Larry,

You are directing us to what can make for change.  I do not know how 
seriously you take Eloi, but unless you see a spirit inhabiting each 
person, the mechanics of behavior must be through the functioning of the 
brain.   How to understand behavior, including affective patterns, etc., 
requires psychoanalytic insight.   Whether there is any point to knowing 
about neuroscience depends on one's interest.   Freud, truly the genius 
you say he was, intuited how the brain functions because of his close 
study of his patients' reactions.  He did not dwell on those insights 
for long because he was interested in helping people.  Obviously, so are 
you.

Johanna

Murray Schwartz wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: larry Lyons [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wed 5/13/2009 9:45 PM
> To: Discussion Group for Psychology and the Arts
> Subject: Re: FW: neuropsychoanalysis
>  
>
>
>
>   
>> If we want to understand how behavior is produced, we must
>> go to 
>> neuroscience.   If we want to understand why
>> behavior occurs as it does 
>> in any person, we must go to psychoanalysis.
>>
>> It is all very interesting.
>>
>> Johanna Tabin
>>     
>
> ------
>
> If you insist on going to the neuroscientist for answers, you're in trouble. They don't have any.  I don't think they ever will.  They are wasting time and money.  They themselves refuse to think about things anymore.  If you ever run across the word "functional" when reading neurological studies, that's a euphemism for "something we refuse to think about." 
>
> My favorite study of all time was when I was a freshman zoology major and attended a lecture where a single brain cell from a frog, or something, was isolated in a petri dish.  It quickly grew a long axon with a weblike structure at the end.  That structure undulated around on the end of the axon, and whenever it found a random protozoan, it ate it. 
>
> Everybody was like WOW!  What the heck!  The scientist presenting the film had no answers.  He thought it was pretty cool though.
>
> How about the flatworm experiment, which became really famous when it was first published.  The researchers put a photophobic species of planarian in a petri dish and put some food under a spotlight.  Eventually the worm got so hungry he forgot his phobia and ate the food.  Eventually the planarian would approach the light even when there was no food there, as if he had been trained to like light.  Then one day the researcher cut it in half and regenerated both halves.  Both halves then grew up to be attracted to light.  A whole new species of light-loving beings had been created.  Eloi!  Lamarck was right all along.
>
> The most modern neurology discoveries, though, have really thrown a monkey wrench into the works; epigenes.  It turns out that severe neglect in infancy can not only change the body chemistry of the victim, the same trauma can change the genetic makeup of the victim to where his offspring to will be prone to neurosis:
>
> http://www.mcgill.ca/headway/fall2006/indepth1/
>
> We can no longer automatically blame mothers anymore for ptsd symptoms in infants.  
>
> Anyway, if Freud, one of the world's leading neurologists at the time--and one of the greatest geniuses of all time--couldn't figure it out, why do you think that modern psychoanalysts can do better.
>
> Yours,
>           Larry 
>   
>
>
>       
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
Tired of your day job?  Love design & style?  Train to be an interior decorator.  Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIfrbTkTUrZ9bmKUY9V54almZMoODI2kml6Cbc8DdCP6gTly9xTxO/