Dr Eisman misrepresents my perspective.

I simply don't say what he attributes to me.

I do, however, question his certitude that he and those he selectively 
accredits with being "scientists" have an indisputable corner on a truth 
beyond subjectivity.

I also question the science underlying his contemptuous caricature of female 
psychoanalysts with training as clinical social workers. 

In my experience, psychoanalytic candidates from the clinical social work 
discipline more than hold their own alongside their psychiatric resident 
classmates, having generally had in fact more formal training and supervision 
and more actual experience in the practice of psychotherapy than their 
medical or, for that matter, their clinical psychology counterparts. 

John Buksbazen
Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute


In a message dated 12°30°2000 1:44:44 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< John Buksbazen presents a contemporary philosophy below which is ultimately

nihilistic. It may be popular with some lit-crit types, but you will find no

scientist subscribing to this point of view.


Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.


It will do the future of psychoanalysis little good to rely on a "there is no

real truth in this world" philosophy. Saying "everything is really 
subjective, so

we accept our own views as being as valid as any others" is ultimately

destructive. It is the logic of cults.

 >>