My Child Won't Listen

Sorry I meant unfinished in the sense of not having access to the entirety of a scholars works. I give probs to you for putting the efforts that you do in-discussion.  
I hope that I’ve not been too-much of a drag in stating my mind, it gets harder and harder to affectively-communicate, the more I narrow in on an argument that I am posing. I rarely consider and counter my lack of theory of mind in my encouragement..

It’s not deliberately unfinished. I also have a full time job, an adult kid (single mother) and life stuff that’s overwhelming and health to mind - I’m also not a prof lecturer so explaining a matter like this when no one else has actually read the material it’s a great deal of effort. There’s a great deal more to the non-spoken language of NT which was then discovered. But there’s enough here to start. When I have a moment to sort my thoughts I will. 

In acknowledgement of my hypocrisy where communication is concerned, I bumped up a discussion in-which I tried to explore this, in ‘miscellaneous and chat’..

Well what I’m getting from this, and I don’t mean to be insulting, but prolix, is that people understand that there are things we don’t know. I agree. 

But from there onwards seems to be mystical in nature, I don’t believe that the secrets to the inner-workings of the brain, are going to be found or expanded upon in any great way by the unsealing of ‘secret notebooks’. 
Just as fighting a war before is has begun gets people hurt, latching onto a hypothetical-scenario and bolting statistics and science to it will also get people hurt, I like to draw my conclusion from what is known.
It is interesting that some conversation were left unfinished, but speculation around those mysteries, is no ground to build the house of autism on.

Also I’d like to say that I wouldn’t be resisting like this, if you were agreeing with me, so it’s no slight on you that I’m taking my stance.
I just feel this is a contradiction to what is good in the development of autism-research. What is good being what is proven, which is that psychological-disorder is comorbid to autism, because no all autists have the same psychological-disorders (if any) in common.

Please explain what " Most grounded researchers and scientists will make room for further understanding and openly state a theory subject to change by new discoveries in science."  What are grounded researchers? Who are grounded researchers?

" There is much to be said on how the brain which is catching social nuance and language and tapping into the collective without much thought has been thought to be 'encoded' in desirable ways to suit the group... "  I have tried this sentence with commas in various places, but still can't get it to make sense.

DeSpereaux said:

Also autistic children don’t need ‘symbolic logic’, they need something actually-logical to memorise and the time to absorb it, the more they are exposed to the less chaotic the world appears and the more competent they become in facing it.

I'm not sure you're talking about Logic anymore. Perhaps you might be referring to Reason? If anything symbolic logic can help turn your ADHD friends sentences into mental formulas and follow all their tangents they might not finish. For instance, is this is what you mean when you say "Logic"? 

Premises: ((R→S)→Q), ¬Q, (¬(R→S)→V). Show: V.

Or do you mean something else.

Freuds original idea about the analysis into the Psyche (psycho-analysis) was summed in his phrase "The work of Spades" an analogy of an archeological dig where something at surface level which we can see is signalling something which we cannot (and cannot assume). Psychodynamics alludes to the 'iceberg'.  However, instead of spades and shovels, the analyst uses verbal communication as the tool. 

There are points here:

What is the motive/intent underlying the behaviour or words. what is at conflict. what are we unaware of? Ultimately the goal involved helping someone in a state of 'dysfunction' to operate more fluidity in life. Freud's patients at the beginning of his career were mostly from wealthier families, many of whom were sexually abused. As history tells us, he felt his work was incomplete, which was almost confiscated and destroyed by the Naxi party, and he continued until his death with his daughter carrying on her father's legacy. Now, there's been much contention around some of his concepts, but it might be easier to understand how they came about by cracking open a few books from his early career. 

Even reading his abridged book On Dreams, it's difficult to dislike the "man behind the myth" and it makes it easier to correct others when he's taken out of context. The 'libido' can be far better understood now, having had an initial concept as this Drive when we look at the 'reward centre' of the brain. Here it's easy to see how a concept that was theorised under a certain influence and slight bias to make sense of a drive to dominate, then morphed into a better understanding the further neuroscience and Philosophy (Foucault, for instance) has expanded on it. We could accuse F. of using outdated language and attaching the wrong motive (sex) to the right mechanism (power). 

The modern practice is currently seeped in Lacanian thought involving the mirroring theatrics of his petite 'a', and as a requirement, a good command of social fluidity with language and vocabulary, but often too myopic, overlooking peer critique which can help sift or differentiate the discovered understanding of widely accepted psychologies of being (and really, in classic form, being Neurotic). Lacan makes being neurotic look sexy.

Psychoanalysis branched from Philosophy (as did medicine and physics). So what do the Stoics or Nietzsche or Hume or Kant have to say about our nature and reasoning? And like archeology, a thing on the surface simply refers to everything submerged which we cannot see and might not be able to access. For some, Psychoanalysis became (or is) an indulgent process an expensive game of Mystery and the unknown. In fact, some individuals who love Lacanian thought such as Peter Rollins, get terribly wrapped up in what is unsaid, which 'carries more weight' than what is said. But the critique of Psychoanalysis is that it became too wrapped up in its theatre. (Guattari)

These concepts pre-date Thinking in Words or Thinking in Pictures (some in Formula). They predate understanding how the brain converts, processes and Sense-Perceives Sound, Gravity, Light and Images, Smell and so on. Most grounded researchers and scientists will make room for further understanding and openly state a theory subject to change by new discoveries in science. Jung had always been quick to state this in his volumes and this willingness to be wrong or in-process with a concept, can mark someone who isn't too quick to bias and thus, more trustworthy. 

The emphasis on Language and its role in therapy or even hypnosis dating back to Franz Mesmer. And here is where it gets interesting. There is much to be said on how the brain which is catching social nuance and language and tapping in to the collective without much thought has been thought to be 'encoded' in desirable ways to suit the group... but I'll stop here for a second and follow up later. 

Try: ‘Gwynne’s Grammar; The Ultimate Introduction to Grammar and the Writing of Good English’ by N.M Gwynne.

Also autistic children don’t need ‘symbolic logic’, they need something actually-logical to memorise and the time to absorb it, the more they are exposed to the less chaotic the world appears and the more competent they become in facing it.

I fell asleep but WHAT on earth are you talking about? 

Being reactionary: quick to judge without attempting to understand, quick to assume, projecting my bias onto a child without using a bit of Reasoning and Logic, IS bad parenting. We've all done it and I'd advise taking necessary measures to grow and mature out of it quick. It only compounds problems. 

To get to the same page, it may be good to understand what you mean by Rhetoric and Logic. So, perhaps add links to what you're referring to. For example:

Symbolic logic can be useful for most Autistic kids, in fact. 

If I were to talk about Logic, I would be referring to a manual such as this open source book - PDF https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=oer-ost

And as for Rhetoric, I bought The Trivium years ago and find it a concise summary for the most part. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trivium-Classical-Liberal-Grammar-Rhetoric/dp/1632864967

I noticed that the cheap-shot didn’t go unreciprocated there.. .. you didn’t need it to make your point though, the prose and substance you’ve formulated speaks for itself..

iI have to say that I feel a little nervous when the discussion of medication come up though, because I just feel uneasy about the supplementation of healthy-lifestyle with pharmaceutical-crutches, though I don’t question that medication is reasonable in some situations..

As I say, psychodynamic theory is not one of my "special interests" but I do know that to Freud "neurosis" was linked to frustration during the psychosexual development of the infant. In other words, it is part of his belief system and is not scientifically falsifiable. I wonder what is the basis for your assertion that "most in philosophical academia now recognise the Neurotic state as the 'normal' being ... " 

You ask where I am getting this information. I am not a psychologist, but I have studied psychology at postgraduate level in the context of child development and social work. Are you a psychotherapist? Your profile does not state your experience. You clearly have some academic background, so why are you reluctant to back up your opinions with citations?

A lot of what I have written can be found in any general undergraduate psychology text. As I say in my profile my interests are eclectic but very much more bio-psycho-social than psychodynamic. I am in favour of pragmatic approaches like Solution-Focussed and Egan's "Skilled Helper" model, because they have been proven effective. (NIHCE guidelines).

I was once at a lecture at the Tavistock, where a therapist said that a year of weekly psychotherapy was as effective in treating depression as Prozac. That is fine if you are in a position to take forty-plus half-days off work, and possibly pay for private treatment. My response was thank you, if I were depressed I would take the pills and get on with my life! To me, psychotherapy is a bit like theology, with everyone arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin, but the fundamental principle, that a Deity exists, is just assumed.

Thank you.. I feel like I’m a spirit that you’ve just exorcised.. ‘I’m free’..!

The Creak points reference I have is:

 (king & lord (2011), Is schizophrenia on the autistic spectrum? Brain Research, 1380, 34-41)

I was hoping you’d spare me the references..

I think that first paragraph about bad parenting is rigid and extreme, its suggests that these parents aren’t sensible because they aren’t Christ, is ridiculous and it doesn’t mean they’re not being as sensible as is reasonable.  
This is a perfect example of what I mean by inferior rhetoric equals inferior logic, it’s difficult as times to not say things callously so I hope you’ll forgive that, it is late..

Agreed. "Time for bed" said Zebedee. To be continued ...

Arguably Creak was superseded by the work of Rutter and Wing. There is an interesting if rather long history by Evans, B (2013) " How Autism become autism"  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757918/] which I need to work my way through, but which, at first sight, seems to put this discussion more cogently.

Whilst we are all entitled to our opinions, I like it if, when someone quotes an authority, they back it up with an actual reference. Freud wrote over forty books, which reflected the development of his thinking. Many of the other names we have mentioned had long careers, and their views changed.

Rhetoric is the most important of science to attain. If have a vocabulary and grammar that is better you can communicate better; if you can communicate better, you have better reason and logic; if you have better reason and logic you have better rhetoric. Rhetoric is the true crucible of understanding, it’s not a bad thing, it is essential to the integrity of everything that follows it. Therefore if someone has not defeated my rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that their logic is either equal or inferior to mine.. I’m crudely stating that point but it doesn’t cheapen the idea..

Also you’re forgetting the final point: compositional technique.. also it is referring to the exploitation of language and the persuasiveness of one’s arguments; not the exploitation or persuasion of people..

Here’s a, cursory breakdown of OP, as requested, as I perceive it:

1 what does sensory-perception have to do with psychoanalysis. Also I’m not so sure that sensory-perception is included in autism but it is comorbid, I think that’s Sensory processing disorder.

2 I don’t see what language has to do with autism, when language impairment is an additional specifier to autism. 

Honestly I’m trying to grip what I started with but it’s late.. I have described the points as I thought them in the thread though.. but I also remain unconvinced by the rhetoric. Is doesn’t supercede the reasoning I have already memorised and absorbed.. again it’s late and I think I’ve used the best rhetoric that I’m going to muster at this point..

Rhetoric - " the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques." [OED]

Hopefully we can share ideas without trying to persuade or exploit. There are many perspectives. I tell my students that there a lot of theoretical approaches. and there is not a single "right" answer. One advantage of being neurodivergent is we can often see the big picture. Every theory or perspective has limitations. We learn by considering new ideas, rejecting some and incorporating others into our world view.

I don't disagree, but I don't know what pretext you are referring to.