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]