Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] NYTimes.com Article: The Public Editor: The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of Fact
- Hello Peter,
Wednesday, April 7, 2004, 8:50:49 PM, you wrote:
PS> "I apply to the psychotherapy process here. If you know Carl Rogers
PS> client-centric therapy process, when therapist is completely NOT
PS> giving any analysis, and just letting the patient be in his process
PS> and he percept his patient as the holistic, able to self-heal system,
PS> you will understand what I mean."
PS> That's downright stupid, in my view. Transference takes place in any therapy process.
Ah, most English psychotherapy is based on stupid ideas. ;)
Also there is transference and contrtransference, which are minimized
in client-centric approach.
PS> "It is other than analytic approach in the science."
PS> Agreed. Psychotherapy is a different realm from the natural sciences. So is history.
So, psychotherapy is based on some other issues than human nature and
behavior which history uses as its basis?
PS> "I would call it synthetic in therms not reverse engineer
PS> some processes using some arguable methods, but see the process as
PS> its wholeness and try to describe it without any evaluative point
PS> of view."
PS> If you try that in history, historians will have trouble taking you seriously.
No. Evaluation means you add your personal into the facts. There IS
another approach. I am sorry if you have not heard about it. But you
still have time. :)
PS> "And I suppose you account your readers as naive"
PS> No, quite the contrary. I think many readers are quite
PS> capable of handling analysis and evaluation in historical writing.
PS> "You do not let your readers think."
PS> That's goofy. The way to get readers to think is to tell them what you think.
Do you think you can feed hungry people not with food but with the
stories what food do you like (or even with your digested food)?
But you can cook them food. Do you see the difference?
PS> "They are reading not history, but your perception of the history"
PS> Every single account of history, without exception, is a
PS> particular perception of history.
So, noone's perception can be called only right perception. Agree?
PS> "Sorry for my English being not native."
PS> No worries. If you think I have misunderstood anything due to
PS> language barriers, please say so.
It is ok for now. Thanks.