Ana Almeida wrote:
>
>If we accept this monistic construction, the dichotomy between
>Psychotherapy Vs. Psychiatry doesn't have to much sense...
>However, the reflections about the need to define the psychological point
>of view, the role of the psychologist and the place of the psychology, can
>be seen under a different light... It's not a question of opposition to the
>stabilised perspectives. In that way, we are only empowering them. It is a
>question of gestalt, to define our own gestalt, ours constructs and what is
>our special contribution to the sciences that say to study the human
>being...
>
OK. Man is a whole -so it is the universe, but we have to break it in pieces
in order to understand it. The problem arises when we believe that we are
looking at _the real thing_: "the real cause of shizophrenia is...", etc. I
don't believe that biological, chemical or psychiatrical explanations are
bad in themselves: it's only that they tend to rule out all other
explanations and to get people freezed in their so-called "diseases" and
their concretistic treatments. So this is not a "psychology vs. psychiatry"
argument: they both are useful sometimes -and they both can do a lot of
disgraces if misused. There was a fellow in my classroom who once asked our
Freudian teacher: "OK: if there is an unconscious, where in the brain is it
located?" And he was _meaning_ it! Let's not fight traditional explanations
just because they happen to be traditional. They are neither wrong nor
right: like those we call "bad feelings", you have to learn how to use them.
Esteban
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%