4. Jim says,
"There are many kinds of truth and within a given problem many apparently
contradictory truths can be discovered.  The discrepancies between
truths generally arise from various points of view.  In some cases,
truth has no correlation with objective fact, but is nevertheless true
because it reflects an inner reality or perception that is important to
the individual."  This statement may express the major differences between my
perspective and Jim's--He is a relativist and I am not.  But I hope he does not
misunderstand me.  I believe psychoanalysis needs both poetry and science, but
the two should not be confused.  I hope Jim will help me understand what he has
said, because it is possible our differences are merely semantic.  I agree there
are different kinds of truth in the sense that the term "truth" can be used to
refer to different kinds of things.  Can Jim give some examples that would help
to clarify the nature of these different kinds of things?  I agree that there is
"an essential component of understanding that has no basis in objective truth"
if one is referring to a kind of "experience."  However, "understanding" in the
sense of "causal explanation" must have an objective basis to be true.
 
Jim says, "But the river had a life of its own and was quite real to the people
in the procession.  The genesis of the river myth might have been interesting,
but it was not essential in understanding the people who believed in it and
followed its ancient course."  I might also agree with Jim here if by
"understanding" he means a certain kind of empathy.  When he says, "real to the
people," he is using "real" to characterize a quality of experience rather than
"is part of everything that exists."
 
5. Jim says, "The differences between various truths are usually resolved by
understanding.  And, it must be emphasized, often there is an essential
component of understanding that has no basis in objective truth."  I believe
this is a serious mistake if "truth" is used here as it relates to "knowledge"
defined as "true, justified, belief."  I subscribe to noncontroversial
relativism in the sense that beliefs and experiences are relative to a
framework.  But "truth" as defined above is not relative.  The structure of DNA
is what it is regardless of the historical or cultural context in which it is
discovered.  Some truth claims are mutually compatible and others mutually
incompatible.  Something can be a gree triangle but not a round triangle.
Various models for DNA were proposed, but only the Watson-Crick model is "true"
(unless we learn in the future that it is false).  Many answers to the same
question are mutually incompatible.  All of these may be false, but only one can
be true.  My "speculative hypothesis" about why analysts first refused to answer
Masson may be wrong and some other incompatible hypothesis true.  The question
can be resolved only by argument and evidence.  No amount of "understanding"
will resolve the issue, as Jim claims, unless the differences between the
hypotheses are purely semantic rather than substantive.  I hope Jim will answer
this message, and I would appreciate any suggestions he can give me for ways I
can change so that I elicit more responses to my posts.
Eric Gillett, M.D.  [log in to unmask]