Dear Andrew,
     I apologize for my "unsupported assumption." My purpose in debate is to
present a comparison of the best arguments on both sides, so I hope that you
will be willing to provide whatever answers you have to my arguments.  Then it
is up to the readers to come to a verdict or add their own arguments. I am sorry
you feel "subjected to a treatment" and would appreciate any of your suggestiong
that would help me engage analysts in constructive dialogue.
 
I agree that Sandler has not suffered from "neglect," but the 1969 Sandler-Joffe
paper has implications for a radical revision of the concept of the unconscious.
In a previous post you mentioned that the scientific community does not pay
attention to every new idea.  According to sociologists of science, questions
regarded important by the scientific community in other sciences is determined
by the most eminent scientists--the "stars."  Sandler is included among the
"stars" along with Rangell, Brenner, Arlow, Wallerstein, and others.  All of
them have recieved a lot of attention, but none of their theoretical ideas have
received the kind of debate that would lead to their incorporation into standard
theory--what socioloists call the "core" as contrasted with the "frontier." The
nature of the unconscious is surely an important question, one to which Freud
devoted considerable attention.
 
Regarding hero-worship, you are right that other fields have their heros, but I
have never heard that anyone in another field claiming that there is a hero
comparable to Freud whose "worship" inhibits the critical evaluation of new
ideas as claimed by Arlow and Brenner (1988) and many others.  The position of
Freud in psychoanalysis (changing recently) has no counterpart in other
disciplines.
Cordially,  Eric  [log in to unmask]
 
ERIC GILLETT writes:
>Sandler-Joffe paper has never received published debate.
 
That's because I don't know the paper and have no time and little
inclination to dig it out. Joseph Sandler has not exactly suffered from
neglect; he was President of the IPA and his research is *hugely* discussed.
 
> points in many previous messages, Andrew ignores them. I hope Andrew will be
> willing to deal with these points and will assume that a failure to do so
 means
> he has no answers.
 
Then you would be jumping to an obviously unsupported assumption -- which
you are free to do, but then don't complain when people back out of
conversations with you. Why are you subjecting me to this sort of
treatment? Because I am not giving your posts the attention you'd like?
That's it for me for this round. (Incidentally, on the subject of
hero-worship, check out physics, economics, sociology, psychology ... and
those are just the disciplines that spring immediately to mind.)
 
--