L Miller wrote:

> yes, and more--  I hear some postulation by Dr Eisman that "his" views are
> "THE CORRECT" views, and that those with different educational levels and
> or trainings are not valuable, nor do they have much to offer to inform
> therapeutic practice as a whole.  Too bad...
>
> Dr Eisman, do you actually believe your words about women social workers
> and psychoanalytic practices, their husbands and such?  What prompted this
> outburst?  Louise
>

> Reply:

You bet I do!. Please note that Cynthia Macdonald describes worse behavior in her
post earlier today.You might ask her if she believes what she posted.

You don't really think that anyone writing something you do not believe couldn't
possibly be serious. What could more reflect belief in "THE CORRECT views" (your
words) than such an assumption..

I also find the old  trick of "what prompted this outburst" for any criticisms in
rather bad taste. The idea that any criticism or description of bad behavior in
the world of psychoanalysis has to be based on some personal psychopathology is
transparently self-serving and quite anti-intellectual. No one takes this ancient
canard seriously anymore.

If psychoanalysis is to ever regain the respectability it once had, attacking
critics with ad hominem arguments will have to stop.

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.

> At 03:20 PM 12/30/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dr Eisman posits a false dichotomy, when he contrasts "scientifically=20
> >obtained DATA" with "a system of beliefs", and claims that he "... rejects a=
> >=20
> >belief system."
> >
> >In fact, the criteria used to determine what constitutes such DATA are=20
> >themselves beliefs, as well as the fundamental assumption that they
> >furnish=20=
> >a=20
> >higher order of validity about some objective reality than the sorts of data=
> >=20
> >he derogates.=20
> >
> >Dr Eisman seems to be a fundamentalist, in the scientistic tradition. This i=
> >s=20
> >in itself a major belief system, and in ascribing to it global psychoanalyti=
> >c=20
> >primacy,  he is simply presenting his own credo.=20
> >
> >John Buksbazen
> >Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute
> >
> >In a message dated 12=B030=B02000 8:25:05 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
> >
> ><< Those of us who feel that psychoanalysis has failed to establish itself
> >as science-to it's great detriment-are not "rejecters" of
> >psychoanalysis. Many of us are trying to stop it from dying. One rejects
> >a belief system. Psychoanalysis should be a body of scientifically
> >obtained DATA, not a system of beliefs. >>
> >
> >
> >
> >Daishin