[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Richard Hayes]

On Sep 3, 2010, at 16:02, Franz Metcalf <franz at mind2mind.net> wrote:

> 
> Richard mentions Masson's _Assault on Truth_. Masson is a  
> very odd duck.

Careful! Masson is Jewish. You might be charged with anti-Semitism. Besides, calling an author an odd duck hardly addresses his arguments or the textual evidence he adduces to show that Freud strongly suspected his father's sexual improprieties and covered them up. 

> I would mention Janet Malcolm's wonderful _In the Freud  
> Archives_ as a counter to Masson. <http://www.amazon.com/Freud-Archives-Janet-Malcolm/dp/1862075980 

Yes, it is a wonderful study. After reading both Masson and Malcolm, I really can't tell which to believe. They are both very persuasive. 
> 
> I think the trouble with Freud, at least the trouble *I* have with him  
> (though I deeply admire him and daily use many of his key insights),  
> is the fact that--especially toward the end--his theory did become  
> more and more insulated. That is, it still could adapt to evidence,  
> but it could not be falsified. I can see why Popper would consider  
> this a mortal failure for a theory.

I also very much admire Freud and consider him an intellectual giant who made gigantic intellectual mistakes along with important discoveries. I also think Popper was right on target in pointing out the fatal flaw in Freud's later theories. What worried Jung was Freud's claim that some of his theories had to be defended "at all costs." Jung learned very painfully that criticism of Freud's theory was construed as disloyalty, betrayal and a personal attack on Freud the human being. This trait in Freud was a concern to Jung, Popper and Masson. 

> (who apologizes if this post is a tad fuzzy-headed, as his six year  
> old daughter is home and distracting him greatly as he writes)

That's right, blame it on the woman. How Freudian can you get?

Richard