I received a very helpful message from a "lurker":  " But your writing has a
strangely grating quality - a dog-knawing-on-a-bone intensity (I am not
comparing YOU to a dog, by the way, just your writing!)that is a tad
offputting."  I hope I can remedy this fault.  I believe the "intensity" is
motivated by the desire to convince listmembers of the validity of several
ideas, but I can see that my approach is counterproductive to the extent that it
is "offputting."
 
The message also said:
"One other thought...from my personal experience (admittedly not very far
ranging) the analysts I've met hold very little allegiance to Freud in the
way you describe.  Perhaps this is another reason you are not getting the
response you desire (which, I assume, is people agreeing with you on this
issue) - the closed-minded, rabidly Freudian analysts you describe are
perhaps not recognizable to the subscribers on the list as people of their
acqaintance."
 
I hope other "lurkers" will tell me publicly or privately why they disagree with
me, since I can't answer arguments that are never presented.  I promise
confidentiality for whatever is sent privately.  My thesis is not that most
analysts are "rabid Freudians," but rather that the balance of power in the
establishment is held by analysts who are not open-minded.  In my psychiatric
training I got to know many analysts, and most of them impressed me as
reasonably open-minded people.  I became aware of the persisting problem of
orthodox rigidity only when I attempted to publish a new idea.  Since I am
obviously biased about my own ideas, I urge listmembers to take this bias into
account in evaluating my personal difficulties in publishing as evidence for the
closed psychoanalytic mind.
 
From reading the papers of Andrew Brook, I would never suspect him of having a
closed mind.  Perhaps I have misunderstood him or am seriously deluded about
this problem in psychoanalysis.  I would like to understand how Andrew thinks
even if we cannot agree.  In his message he referred to what is "blindingly
obvious."  To me, the avoidance of discussion in psychoanalysis is "blindingly
obvious."  Just as one example, I would love to know how Andrew explains the
total absence of published debate on the Sandler-Joffe (1969) distinction
between the experiential versus the nonexperiential which is central to an
adequate understading of the concept of the unconscious.  I will present
additional evidence in a series of posts with an invitation to listmembers to
answer publicly or privately.
Eric  [log in to unmask]