Thank you Prof Young for your answer. It shows a much wider picture. It
does not take anything out of my statement: <<the University mission is to
inform the public in a neutral manner with the most universal view of
humankind's knowledge >> - and it brings in the frame, behind the professor
the character of the individual - that is much refreshing.

   It give also a much cleared idea of the issue. As you knew about
Velikovsky
(who is so well known and so little mentioned) we see that academia knows
very well but hides or 'deliberately ommit' important and/or fundamental
information. Why would a day-school, and/or a learned journal, keep the high
possibility that Oedipus was Akhnaton silent? Does it mean that the students
are at school to play riddles? perhaps. Or is learning intending to
humiliate the memory and to make people idiots? It has been suspected too.

(this Akhnaton issue is just an example, perhaps a symptom, which may be
indicative of the process in many other fields of academia)

   In my experience when I talk to people about this hypothesis, they can
groke it easily. So it is not too higher-grade for a student. Osman, Bernal
are published, even Velikovsky is confirmed by recent climate studies. There
may be a structural, social, collective reason for this intriguing silence.
   As I already mentioned, there are formula from Lacan which allow a
positive interpretation of the fact. They show that either the academia
stands for the death drive, either it regresses, or third possibility it
progresses - but this third possibility is impedimented by the government
(Discours of the Master)
I have peronnaly added to the theorization the social phenomenon that
JPSartre and RDLaing called 'Reciprocity of Terror'.

   These perspectives allow to progress in the understanding of the
Superego - which is largely responsible for the commandement of
Knowledge/Morale - that is very much what we are facing in our present
examination.
   But beside the theory aspect, my feeling is that when the 'complex', or
'issue', of the Superego is tackled or even only approached, any comment,
interpretation, hint, observation etc.. is always attracted toward
'personnal' factors. This would build up a defense where any attempt to
decipher/analyse, for instance the academia situation in this case, is
distracted.

   We may be at this crucial hinge between individual and collective.
Essential clinical questions are found there - for instance: Why would the
general professoral individual (in charge of reflecting the universal
knowledge) hide what he knows, thus behaving like a paranoiac (which was for
Lacan the foundation of human knowledge)?
   I suggest to look closely at the oppositive views  of Freud and Lacan on
the Superego topic. Within the gap between these two psychoanalysts, we may
find good insight for further investigation.

Elements for this study are elaborated at
http://www.akhnaton.com/cured/supermo.htm
And also presented in "the distinction of Psychoanlaysis"
http://www.akhnaton.com/psy/modpsy.htm#03

Zenon Kelper (not Kepler)