Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To use Pocket to save bookmarks to PEP-Web articles…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Pocket (formerly “Read-it-later”) is an excellent third-party plugin to browsers for saving bookmarks to PEP-Web pages, and categorizing them with tags.

To save a bookmark to a PEP-Web Article:

  • Use the plugin to “Save to Pocket”
  • The article referential information is stored in Pocket, but not the content. Basically, it is a Bookmark only system.
  • You can add tags to categorize the bookmark to the article or book section.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Maloney, A. (2003). Reply to Hogenson (JAP, 48, 1, January 2003). J. Anal. Psychol., 48(2):263-265.
   

(2003). Journal of Analytical Psychology, 48(2):263-265

Reply to Hogenson (JAP, 48, 1, January 2003)

Alan Maloney, M.D.

George Hogenson generously responds to a number of criticisms I raised regarding his original contribution (Hogenson 2002). While he endorses a non-tabula rasa model of the mind, he leaves out a priori features when discussing higher level mentations. In some instances this might be called a ‘near blank slate’, in other instances a ‘rewritable slate’, model of the mind. This is a striking position given that archetypes have also been known as dominants of the unconscious. Hogenson, as best as I can tell, views archetypes as strictly emergent. This is problematic on two accounts: first, it ignores the issues of from what they emerge, and the effect that those antecedents have; and second, it fails to distinguish between the archetypes themselves and archetypal manifestations, a distinction which Jung belabored.

Hogenson persists in a straw-man attack on evolutionary psychology around the issue of modularity. Evolutionary psychology, using the logic of evolution, categorically claims that complex mental competence must be based on simpler antecedents, concluding that all mental ability is based on modularity. Evolutionary psychology neither requires that mentation is solely modular nor that modules are always and only internal representations of the world. Hogenson repeatedly attempts to dismiss evolutionary psychology on a technicality as seen in his treatment of trends in robotics. Rodney Brooks’ own words make clear Brooks’ real assertion:

Rather than modularize perception, world modeling, planning and execution, the new approach builds intelligent control systems where many individual modules each directly generate some part of the behavior of the robot.

(Brooks 1991, p. 1227)

Evolutionary psychology simply claims that all mental abilities are exposed to selective pressures, and that the particular features of these abilities influence the whole spectrum of psychological phenomena. While disputes about modularity exist (see Fodor 1998), the wholesale rejection of modularity is fiction.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.