[FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

To make that claim, you'd have to walk through all the medicine that's happening, analgesics, physical therapy, acupuncture, dentistry, etc.. Walking through the psychiatry that's happening is a much smaller task. I agree there does seem to be a lot of it, though ... I just  have no idea if it's *most*.

As long as I'm logging opinions, I'd answer Jon's question about psycho*dynamics* with the idea I think I got from Thomas Saaz, that it's fundamentally about creating a therapist-patient relationship ... dovetailing 2 types of raw persuasion/manipulation in order to achieve the ends of the therapist or patient (or both). My guess is the tone of that coercion depends deeply on the 2 parties. Some authoritarian therapists may rely on daddy-mommy-child constructs. Others may be more egalitarian, pushing the ethical boundaries on friendship with one's patients. Etc. Lots of people who lack intimate relationships might come to a better place through such intentional relationship forming.

But it needn't be through psychodynamics. I know a few people who've done it with their fitness coach, or life coach. One guy I knew back in Texas regularly visited a round-robin of prostitutes. I joke with my bartenders that I pay them to be my friends ... Good jokes must have some truth in them.

On 4/29/21 3:47 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> By that definition most of medicine is bullshit.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:27 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306068036_Psychiatry_as_Bullshit
> 
> On 4/29/21 3:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Jon,
>>
>> I am sorry I disappointed you.  My understanding of object relations theory is like swiss cheese and I chose not to provide an inadequate response by humming a few bars.  By the way, object-relations theory provides a non-Oedipal alternative to your interpretation as explained by the Wikipedia article.  I became the withholding bad object to you.  I hope you will be able to integrate that with the good object I have been at times.
>>
>> Good for Glen.
>>
>> I am not a practitioner of psychoanalytic theory but it may not be for you.  As for psychoanalytic /treatment, /see the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article.
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 4:09 PM jon zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Frank,
>>
>>     To some extent, your response is indicative of the psychoanalytic
>>     ends I criticize, the mommy-daddy-me Oedipal construction. Rather than
>>     pick up on the opportunity presented by the conversation to engage in an
>>     act of creativity (contributing to a forum), you use your agency to make
>>     an authoritative (daddy) appeal to an object away from yourself and your
>>     agency (the Wikipedia article). This action strikes me as functionally
>>     different than Glen's earlier reference, say. While Glen's appeal acts to
>>     ground and facilitate a living discussion, yours aims to end one. I felt
>>     that the question I asked was fair, to hum a few bars regarding a
>>     connection you are making that perhaps could contribute. If this sort of
>>     short-circuiting of concepts and conversation is what I can expect from
>>     practitioners of psychoanalytic theory, well, maybe it's not for me.


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ