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





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