From: Andrew Phelps <phelps@cwnet.com>
To: RadPsyNet-Members@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat Dec 20 17:42 PST
Subject: Re: [RadPsyNet-Members] Re: Kant and morality
Lmn:
There is another side of this. I learned some of it from John Shotter more than a decade ago, and from Efg more recently.
On Wed Dec 17 2:50 GMT, Lmn sent:
I held out the hand of friendship, looking for your understanding of affect regulation to consider. What you have sent is reactionary, defending an untenable naturalism which is so out of date that I wonder that you practise.
Vwx recently challenged the California Dept. of Mental Health in its effort to comply with the U.S. Dept. of Justice "Consent Judgment" on its State Mental Hospitals, for "compassion failure."
Although I too have difficulties with his rhetoric, I've got to say he makes *real contributions*.
I can't buy in to this but, as it has been made clear that my objections are regarded as jargon, it is time for me to move on. This list should really call itself reactionary psychology. There is no critical element and no reflective dialogue.
IMHO this phenomenology is a reflection of the toxic state of psychological affairs in the U.S. right now. You are lucky to be in the U.K. where bad as things may seem, they are actually .. more positive.
That "jargon" thing is nonsense and unkind, I'd agree. But thank you for your kindness in speaking from the heart and helping us some with this fix we find ourselves in.
Andrew Phelps