Re: fort - da: an appropriation
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/19/99 11:11:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu writes:
<<
People in the wide world of psychology still study Freud. And those
who claim they don't study Freud simply haven't yet realized (or been
told) that they still study Freud.
--
Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu
>>
Yes, as I said in a later post, I studied Freud too. And had it shoved down
my throat in every class. But even at that point I was told that less than
ten percent of American health care professionals would call themselves
Psychoanalysts, and most of what we studied undermined the fundamental
premises of Freudian psychoanalysis in some pretty important ways. His
influence is undeniable and continuing, but he's waaaay in the background.
I agree we're getting hung up on definitions, though, because I think you're
defining "linguistics" in such a way as to include any system of signs, and
are not limiting the word to purely verbal forms of thought or expression. I
wasn't aware that the word had so expanded...I thought linguistics referred
only to "words" or language, while semiotics referred to any system of signs.
HOWEVER, I'm probably not as up on it as you are, either...
Jim
PS to Joey -- there's a difference between memory and the subconsious...