Some of you know I’m partaking of a loose-curriculum psychology course online. (With a possibility of future University-level accreditation?)
And I trot out a lot of the ideas, insights and long-haired terminologies in my posts and responses.
Just know that I’m doing this to help me retain and articulate what I’m learning; and not to try to sound grandiose.
Please let me know if you’d like a concept more fully explained.
© 2026 – SoulSequel
6 responses to “Just a comment to everyone.”
I don’t have a lot of time to post at this exact moment, but just wanted to say, post away! I am enjoying your posts! They make me think even if I don’t always comment on them.
I would try and pave new road, rather than the old roads.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-bursley/neuroscience-and-consciousness_b_3468999.html
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/8/845.full
etc, that is level the old models of Freud, which, from I have heard is now the norm.
David Eagleman
https://www.eagleman.com/
Concepts like id, superego, and ego are gone. Fully? No. But Eagleman, like others are really changing the understanding on the mind.
@five2one
But what if the old road still go somewhere valuable?
Understanding where we have come from intellectually doesn’t preclude fully participating in where we are right now. But it does give one the foundation to recognize echo-chambers of confirmation bias and seriously lack of institutional disconfirmation in many of the studies and theories coming particularly out of University-level Humanities and Social Studies departments.
The first article is “nothing new”.
The second is interesting, but in a way confirms the sheer genius of what some call the “old-school” philosophers and psychologists for formulating such effective understandings of complex Human consciousness without today’s advanced imaging technology. They actually thought a problem through over time, rather than just going “Zap! Zap! . . . Hey, look at that”. They are in essence, just confirming with a computer, what someone worked out longhand 150 years ago. They are “the lesser tinkerers”.
The third link doesn’t tell much except about the man and the book he’s selling. It will take some digging to see if there’s anything new.
Current teaching still recognizes the values of Freud, Neithzche, Heidegger, Keirkegaard, Piaget, Rogers, Jung. Each represents a different “gripping point” to understand complex human behaviors and their development over time.
Often the abandonment of an old road represents a horrendous waste of resources. They can be maintained to service the still-useful destination, and new roads built to newly discovered places. (Trait-openness (zeal for the new) doesn’t have to override trait-conscientiousness (not abandoning the time-honored) — that’s from Jung)
BTW, phenomenology is the new “departure from the norm”. It’s focus is the nature of being, rather than the nature of informational structures. It’s a totally different way of looking at “the Human being” vs “the Human sort-of-like-a-computer”.
I have no issue with it…so long as you occasionally post some of your outstanding photography.
(for the unenlightened, Craig a.k.a. Griz is an accomplished photographer)
An article on Freud’s mistakes and why he still matters today
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815
@Jear77
It would be interesting to know where George Dvorsky was educated.
But that aside, remember the biologically-determined process of essentially “using” one’s parents (and by extension the society) despite their flaws, and moving ahead . . . without having to treat them as “dead” (actually, allegorically — though many adults with surviving parents do, to their shame).
As for no credible sources still teaching Freud? I guess the U of Toronto isn’t a credible source! Actually iirc, NYU’s Jonathan Haight still teaches it, as to many others. They’ve just “retreated” publicly of late, out of “fear of the mob” fired up by the illiberal left. They are starting to speak out again — and with surprisingly little outcry. Because they are confronting emotionalistic strawmen with logic and reason.
There is a huge difference between abandoning something because it is unserviceable, and abandoning it because it doesn’t service our feelings! That is literally going to be the epitaph of postmodern neo-marxism and the illiberal left . . . provided their zombies don’t overrun too many people before the defenses of logic, reason, critical analysis and free thought are re-erected.
It is important to know what is there in Freud’s teachings to know what is worth resigning to History, and why. Most of that article is about emotional and speculative reasons to crush it.