Posted by alexandra_k on January 18, 2006, at 20:13:58
In reply to Re: okay so this isn't working out :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2006, at 19:48:49
sorry we crossed posts with my last rant...
> I think the more recent psychoanalytic writings aren't all that negative. Have you read the more recent stuff?
er... like that piece on massification that you didn't like so much ;-)
> I think an interpretation is "true" if it is true for that client.so you don't think that there is a fact of the matter as to why someone did what they did? what their real motivations are? because if it is a matter of interpretation... then it follows that there is not a fact of the matter.
regarding 'true for me'... i'm not so sure about this... i don't know... i'll try and think of an example or two...
> My therapist always proposes things, he doesn't assert them. It's up to me to decide if he's right or not.
yes. i wonder if he sees it the same way or if he thinks you are in denial for not accepting his view of your real motivation?
> But how are those different than what CBT therapists do, in the long run? Aren't they always having you figure out what your secondary gain, or internal dialogues are? And don't they try pretty hard to *tell* you what those are?
not really... especially not if they are fairly behavoiurally focused. intentions don't matter. are irrelevant... in fact... according to behaviourism there isn't any such thing as an intention. behaviour is under the control of rft contingencies and a persons conscious experience is irrelevant.
> Maybe it is more of an art.
okay. but then it isn't a theory of what people really believe and desire. it isn't a theory of mind at all. it has no predictive leverage. it has no explanatory leverage. it is... like reading poetry or gazing at tealeaves to figure out the meaning of life.
> Isn't literature supposed to tell great truths about the human condition?
depends who you ask.
i think literature is about... entertainment. we enjoy it :-)what claims to they make that are candidates for truth or falsity?
> I just know that when I was going to therapy twice a week and things were working, I sure was doing better than I am now. :(
hmm.
i guess i'm just interested in why people do what they do.
intentions
motivations
is there a fact of the matter?
if so then how do we know what is true?
if not then what is the scope of possible interpretations?
what should the criteria be on 'better' or 'worse' interpretations to adopt?i dunno...
just raving really and not making a lot of sense.i guess i wanted to look at psychoanalysis as a theroy of mind. but it isn't a credible theory of mind. so... there it is.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:599901
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060110/msgs/600482.html