This e-mailing continues my response to Paolo Migone's earlier posting
in which he presented a passage he wrote for a recent work honoring the
memory of Merton Gill.

Paolo Migone continued:

Actually, we should not use such terms as distortions or manipulations
in the first place (that's way I used the quotation marks), since it
might imply that we believe in the opposite, i.e., that it is possible
to eliminate distortions and perceive an uncontaminated or "true"
reality.

{JD} I completely agree with this. The word "distortion" implies much
too strongly that the analyst in fact must have the better view of
reality when this, of course, may not be so; for there may remain yet
undetected errors in the analyst's formulation of things even if s/he
has correctly detected something amiss in the patient's view. And when
viewed from another perspective, a perspective that may be more
productive of a satisfactory life, the patient's supposed error may turn
out to be much less erroneous from this different percpective. One
doesn't need an elaborate philosophical understanding of the meaning of
truth and reality, although this can certainly be helpful, in order to
not come across as a dogmatic know--it-all. Simple courtesy in
respecting our common human struggle to find more workable or less
erroreous views on living would serve this cause also. It's a very good
idea to foster less dogmatism now that scientific thinking no longer
needs to be made respectable with specious doctrinaire confidence.
Toward this end of less doctinaire dogmatism, "distortion" has got to
go.

Just one aside, however. I disagree with the assertion that we should
NOT believe in the possibility of perceiving an uncontaminated and
undistorted view of reality. I believe it IS POSSIBLE to perceive an
uncontaminated and undistorted view of reality. The problem is that we
don't have any way of being sure when this may be happening. Thus
although we may be able to perceive an undistotred and uncontaminated
view (or knowlege of the truth about reality), we have no way of knowing
with certainty when this happens. But we can have much more certainty
about our erroneous views, however, AFTER we discover an error. We can
be more sure, that is, of having had a contamined, distored view, that
is, after we have discovered an error. (Still, I didn't like using the
words "contaminated" and "distorted" in these last sentences.
Unhospitable-sounding words, these. Even "erroneous" or "mistaken" can
offend the dignity of anyone struggling to find better ways of
reasoning, feeling, and being. And isn't this eveyone's struggle?

Jim Duffy







______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com