From: Scott Chase (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 27 Feb 2004 - 02:52:31 GMT
>From: Keith Henson <email@example.com>
>Subject: RE: Is Freud contagious?
>Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:33:49 -0500
>At 04:41 PM 26/02/04 -0500, Scott wrote:
>>From what I vaguely recall, Freud did some interesting neurobiological
>>work on lamprey (and other organisms I can't remember right now). Maybe he
>>should have stuck to this work. I can't think of much he contributed to
>>modern psychology that's worthy of merit, beyond some nifty neologisms.
>>Maybe the superego has some value as a moral constraint.
>>He is of historical interest though,
>That and meta, why did Freud's memes have so much (unjustified) influence?
>>and is nested well within the subset of early psychology I'm interested
>>in, allied to Jung and sharing a debt to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Haeckel,
>>etc. (ie- long dead German guys).
>But if you are studying this stuff for *content* it must be like studying
>alchemy or phlogiston. I.e., before anyone had a decent model of what was
One can, though realizing how far off track the specifics of Gall's phrenology were, appreciate this flawed system as a primitive form of modularity.
(bq)"Faculty psychology [including the phrenology of Gall- Scott's
insertion] was largely abandoned at the beginning of the 20th century, but
now, with the modular theory of mind, it is regaining prominence."(eq)
[from page 37 of Dylan Evans' and Oscar Zarate's 2000 book _Introducing
Evolutionary Psychology_. Totem Books. New York, New York]
Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage – 4 plans to choose from!
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 27 Feb 2004 - 03:02:40 GMT