238
PARTISAN REVIEW
Morris Eagle:
Thank you, Dr. Cooper. I must step out of my role as
moderator and express my personal appreciation for the point of view you
expressed. You may take it for granted, but at times it seems like a rational
cry in the wilderness. Our next step will be discussion among the panelists
and then we'll take questions from the audience.
Helen Meyers: I
am so happy that Dr. Cooper likes to talk to non-scien–
tists as well. That means he is willing to talk to me, and I'd love to talk to
him further. There are, of course, those who would consider it a little ques–
tionable that you don't consider analysis a science, obviously you
differentiate the physical science as true science from the social sciences
which are real?
Leon Cooper:
I didn't mean that psychoanalysis wasn't a science.
Helen Meyers:
In terms of various defini tions of internal consistencies,
we talk about certain basics that remain the same. (Ricoeur?) I have a li t–
tle trouble with the notion that there are "facts" and that "a fact is a fact."
You know perfectly well, and I think you pointed it out, that facts change
depending on the observer and on the way they are perceived. Perception
is influenced not only by expectations and cultures but by each individ–
ual's colored glasses, so to speak. As you have pointed out, facts become
very different in relation to new ideas and new ways of looking at things.
So I don't know what a fact is. I am dealing here with a current contro–
versial concept in psychoanalysis by moving from such notions as objective
fact, objective observer, historical truth, the finding of truth, reality, exter–
nal reality, toward subjectivism. In a way this moves away from all fact. The
whole idea of the original notion that the objective observer, that is the
analyst, could tell what is true and what was the best solution and that he
or she could tell this to the patient is now kind of anathema to psychoan–
alytic thinking. While you are absolutely right that Freud started out with
the notion and hope that eventually we would find the physiological and
ideological somatic basis for everything psychological, that doesn't neces–
sarily make it true or desirable. Freud came from a physical science
background, he was a neurologist, it was very important to him that he
adhere to the physical sciences. I agree that you are going to find common
neurological, biological pathways for everything in the body. However, this
will not explain what goes on psychologically. Without question there is a
somatic organic pathway and we're going to find out more about this, but
it will not explain the transition from this chemical pathway to the psy–
chological, internal interpretation or vice versa. That's where the big leap
comes in and we don't know the answer. "There are more things between
heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy." I may even be a
