[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Timothy Smith]

Dan,

Neither Jung nor Freud is widely accepted in
the scientistic atmosphere that pervades todays psychopharmacology, in spite of what Psychetoday might say.
Jim Hollis, a man who you may not be familiar with, points out quite clearly that the treatment of symptoms,
while providing some relief, does little to deal with the underlying causes of our neurosis (which the buddha known as Jung
described as suffering that had not yet found its meaning).

It seems that now we have either a choice of modifying our behavior through some kind of cognitive discipline, or we
simply take a pill.  Neither really deals with the issue of suffering, of attending to the soul (the potentially whole person),
but rather is a palliative based in the reductive models of western medicine.  While there is clearly a place for this,
the treatment of neurosis (if not psychosis) doesn't seem the proper match in the long haul.  Drugs and psychopharmacology help
people, cognitive behavior therapy helps people, but neither answers the question of suffering.  Buddhism does a better job, by simply
shifting the burden to the cognitive side saying "don't trouble yourself with it".  

We've all tried that.  Sometimes it works.


If, perhaps, one of these white-coated "psychologists" finds some apt comparison between their findings and Freud's or Jung's ideas), 
you can bet that on the one hand, they'll be enlisting one or the other of these two distinguished gentlemen or their  followers
to support sales while holding their noses with the other in the lab.

Freud said a lot of shit in his lifetime that wasn't true then or now.  And we're all playing catch up, but to what?   And with regard to final article you've linked to,
I can only say that the last paragraphs reveal that the authors still haven't sorter mind/brain in their own thinking.

If that job can be finished—if Kandel’s
“new intellectual framework for
psychiatry” can be established—then the
time will pass when people with emotional
difficulties have to choose between
the talk therapy of psychoanalysis, which
may be out of touch with modern evidence-
based medicine, and the drugs prescribed
by psychopharmacology, which
may lack regard for the relation between
the brain chemistries it manipulates and
the complex real-life trajectories that culminate
in emotional distress. The psychiatry
of tomorrow promises to provide
patients with help that is grounded in a
deeply integrated understanding of how
the human mind operates.
Whatever undreamed-of therapies
the future might bring, patients can only
benefit from better knowledge of how the
brain really works. As modern neuroscientists
tackle once more the profound
questions of human psychology that so
preoccupied Freud, it is gratifying to find
that we can build on the foundations he
laid, instead of having to start all over
again. Even as we identify the weak
points in Freud’s far-reaching theories,
and thereby correct, revise and supplement
his work, we are excited to have the
privilege of finishing the job.




Timothy Smith
Office/Mobile 831.624.8138
Fax  831.659-5112
www.wheelwrightassoc.com



On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

>> 
> 
> You're welcome. In fact, Freud is having something of a comeback in recent 
> years, esp. among some brain researchers, who are finding that some of his 
> theories do seem to have physiological correlates.
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-minds-method-or-muddle/201003/who-s-afraid-sigmund-freud
> 
> Lots of people forget that Freud himself predicted that at some future date 
> he expected physiological processes will be discovered that account for the 
> psychological dynamics he was analyzing. Unlike Jung, he wasn't a fan of the 
> wookie, and prefered scientific method.
> http://www.neuro-psa.org.uk/download/SAorig.pdf
> 
> Still playing catch up.
> 
> Dan 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>