Curt Doolittle updated his status.

(FB 1553442870 Timestamp)

(important) (read this)

—“is there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).”— Gerard

I think that it is always better to use this series:

  1. Means: Personality traits and reward systems. (anglo/physical)

  2. Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)

  3. Training: Stoicism (Acquisition of virtues by CBT)

4 Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)

  1. Defect:(Victim)Freudian Analysis (feminine conformity) (Jewish feminine)

This series begins with the most precise but least experiential and moves to the least precise but must experiential.

Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list.

This series is as important as:
1. The hierarchy of Measurements (mathematics)
2. The hierarchy of States of Matter (physical science)
3. The hierarchy of Grammars (language)
4. The hierarchy of Knowledge (aristotelian categories)

Leave a Reply