Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00144)

Wry: Jeffrey Masson and the Freudian

Brian: After Masson (who also wrote another expose called "My Fathers 
Guru"), it became difficult to argue that the Oedipus complex was a 
direct consequence of the abandonment of the seduction 
theory; instead, it was clear that he only gradually dropped one and 
embraced the other. But as to his reason for dropping the seduction 
theory, the traditional account, in which Freud came to suspect that
his patients had not actually been abused, withstood the challenge from 
Masson.

If loyal Freudians thought that they could relax, having fended off 
Masson, they were very much mistaken. A new and more sustained 
attack was still to come, this time from an assortment of scientists, 
philosophers, and literary critics. Of these, the literary critic
Frederick Crews probably sparked the most debate, partly because his 
work first appeared in the New York Review of Books, long considered a 
Freudian bastion.

In essays published in 1993 and 1994, Crews agreed with Masson that 
Freud lied about why he abandoned the seduction theory. Yet unlike 
Masson, who believed Freud backed away from his patients' stories of 
abuse because of cowardice, Crews accused Freud of essentially making 
up those stories in the first place. So eager was Freud to prove his 
seduction theory, according to Crews, that he encouraged his patients
to recall having been abused as children. And the patients, who were
none too stable to start with and eager to please their doctor, obliged
with descriptions of abuse that, in fact, had never taken place.

To prove his case, Crews delved into Freud's papers from the 1890s.
He found repeated admissions that, prior to their analysis, Freud's
patients had no idea that they'd supposedly been molested as 
children. "Only the strongest compulsion of the treatment," Freud wrote 
in 1896, "can induce them to embark on a reproduction of (the 
molestation scenes)." 

It was not that Freud intentionally invented the stories, Crews said,
but that he grossly underestimated the extent to which his patients were 
susceptible to his suggestions.

Gradually, however, Freud realized that the stories of childhood
abuse he was hearing weren't true. Perhaps he also realized that was 
why his therapy wasn't working , or perhaps some of the patients
retracted the stories. But then it was too late: Freud had already 
presented the seduction theory to his colleagues, and he was too 
embarrassed to admit that his findings were the result of a fatally 
flawed form of therapy.

However to read the whole background of psychotherapy I 
recommend the scolarly work by Adam Crabtree "From Mesmer to 
Freud."

Blavatsky and the early TS also experimented with "Magnetic
Sleep" but they used drugs and had a secret masonic type degree 
system.

But the TS went trough several re-inventions, for example when 
Blavatsky moved to England it became sort of a pseudo-scolarly 
gentlemen club that started hiding details of its previous history
under the rug, next culminating in the "World Teacher" project or
things like the. And when Krishnamurti left replaced by the "World 
Mother " project and things like "The Seven Virgins of Java" project, but 
they where not brown believe me.


Brian


Archives.--- In theos-talk@y..., "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
> Hi. I cannot wade through all of this material. You seem to be
implying
> that Brian is using someone elses ideas/words, but I'm not sure, 
as I 
don't
> have much time to read a lot of crap about the past and analysze
it, 
and I
> see no pay-off, except possibly being sucked into a pit. Put salt
on
> anything I say about Brian being brilliant. It is just one person's 
opinion.
> Maybe I have a use for him in the future and I am flattering him. 
Maybe
> something else. I thought his analysis of some new-age physicists
had
> value, and could be important. To understand what a debunker can 
do, an
> interesting read would be the story of Jeffrey Masson and the
Freudian
> Archives. I am not sure I would bother with theosophy in the
respect 
that
> Masson bothered about modern psychiatry, but it is possible, if a 
person
> comes in at the right place, at the right Spot, so to speak, with a 
minimal
> effort, major tendencies in society can be weakened, strengthened
or
> redirected in such a way that a greater aim is accomplished. You
are
> getting lost in words..My suggestion to you (and Brian): pick a
simple 
idea
> to ponder, or word roots, or a proverb like "a stitch in time saves 
nine, "
> or a story from Grimms Fairy Tales or ALLEGORICAL material from 
any major
> religion (the story of Christ and Judas?). or even a nursery rhyme
from
> Mother Goose. This will give you more GRP(grip). Reading and writing
> subjective interpretations of the past is too slippery. I cannot
believe
> this is what Madame Blavatsky had in mind. She brought some new 
ideas and
> concepts to the west in a form in which they could be assimilated,
but 
that
> act was time-appropriate and has probably already fruited (with
> Krishnamurti). This is a different time, and a different kind of
activity is
> called for. Each person needs to find within himself where he fits
in 
and
> figure out what to do. Anything on the outside is grist for the
mill and 
to
> be used to accomplish this aim, but unless a person impartially
studies
> himself, he will never know what to do. It will all be pouring from
the
> empty into the void, and nothing of value will ever be accomplished.
> Sincerely, Wry------------------------------------------------
Original
> Message -----
> From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...>
> To: <theos-talk@y...>
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:16 PM
> Subject: Theos-World "If we learn to use OUR OWN WORDS. . . ." 
plus Wry on
> Brian
> 
> 
> > Wry, you wrote in part:
> >
> > "I do not understand why you would want a person who is
> > as intelligent as Brian, if not indeed brilliant, and obviously
VERY
> > interested in theosophy, to leave your list. All he is doing is
> > giving words and his opinion....Brian has a passion.about your
> > subject. That is so obvious. Why would you kick someone like this
off
> > your list? Why don't you ask him why he is so interested in this
> > subject? Maybe he won't tell you, but maybe he will. If we learn
to
> > use OUR OWN WORDS and communicate honestly and simply about 
ideas, we
> > will discover new ideas, and our words will make a bridge." Caps
> > added
> >
> > So Wry, are you judging Brian's "intelligence" and "brilliance"
> > by what he has posted on this forum?
> >
> > But how much of what Brian has posted on this forum was
> > actually written by him?
> >
> > For example, in Brian's recent posting at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8010
> >
> > do you think he writes "brilliantly"?
> >
> > But before you answer that question, please COMPARE what Brian
> > has "written" with the material on the following web page:
> >
> > http://www.navreme.net/xenophobia.htm
> >
> > OBTW, I like what you wrote:
> >
> > "If we learn to use OUR OWN WORDS. . . ." caps added.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >