Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:21:43 -0700
From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: the reality check is in the mail


Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:
> 
> > but the field of therapy is not determined by the different therapeutic
> > models which one can enumerate.  structually, important commonalities do
> > exist.
> >
> > and these include the exchange of money for service.  the presumption by the
> > client of a "need" for engaging in therapy.  the expectation/hope by the
> > client that the therapist can assist in the "satisfaction" of this need.
> > the expectation/hope by the client that the therapist possesses some
> > "knowledge" or "methodology" by which to assist the client.  the client's
> > "self-expression" within the therapeutic process (however this may be
> > actualized:  verbally, artistically, musically, dramatically, etc.).
> >
> > these structural constituents unavoidably set up relations of power,
> > knowledge and language.  which is why all three become central to the
> > discussion and theorizing of the field of therapy ...
> >
> > brent ...
> 
> These structural conditions you describe are general ones that exist
> under capitalism as such.  Creating needs and satisfying them for a
> price can also describe Stars Wars, MicroSoft, Bush, compassionate
> conservatism, chewing gum, lexus automobiles, olive trees, etc.
> 
> Certainly, therapy shares family resemblances with all of these, just as
> we ourselves are all strangers in a strange land.  Sometimes we are so
> alone here we have to pay somebody just to listen.
> 
> I think, Brent, you are raising important issues about therapy, just as
> Deleuze, Lyotard, Laing, Hillman, Nabokov, the whole anti-Freudian
> brigade and others have raised questions, each of them with a slightly
> different emphasis.
> 
> These questions of form, however, do not seem to rule out or exhaust the
> questions of content that Lois raised.  I don't think she must be silent
> on the subject just because she is a therapist.  Must I also be silent
> just because I am an accountant?
> 
> I remember reading once that in the Middle Ages there was a dispute
> concerning the role of government.  The question argued was whether or
> not it was a consequence of the fall.  The Augustinians (they seem to be
> topical here lately) argued they it was the product of orginal sin.  In
> Paradise, there would be no need for government. Things would take care
> of themselves.
> 
> Aquinas, however, thought otherwise.  He pointed out there was a
> hierarchy among the angels even before the fall and that there is a
> primordial need for governance and order, implicit in the very structure
> of the world. Without the violence brought about by original sin, order
> becomes one with beauty and harmony. Politics then can become a branch
> of aesthetics.  (when coupled with the violence of the fall, it becomes
> fascism.)
> 
> Be that as it may, I think that even in a political utopia, without the
> cash nexus, there would still be a need for people to help one another
> and something like therapy would probably exist. If it didn't exist, it
> would have to be reinvented. Isn't it true there is a common tradition
> of shamans, wise women, healers and the like? (I recognise these
> traditions have lately been marketed to us in an imperialist fashion,
> but does this mean they are totally subsumed by capitalism?)
> 
> Thus I raise the question for this group to consider.  Does therapy have
> any value beyond capitalism or is it just a kissing cousin of the
> world's oldest profession?
> 
> Isn't the very process of engaging in philosophy something like doing
> therapy?  Wittgenstein certainly thought so.  What do others think?
-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-

ERIC&M

Something like our hairy cousins grooming each other.

Hugh