It is obvious on this list that the ratio of participants to lurkers is
extremely small.  What I am hoping to gain from this message is a little
feedback, either public or private.  During the time I have followed this list I
have recieved both positive and negative responses to my posts.  1. What is it
that lurkers hope to gain by signing up on this list?  2. I know that many want
clinically relevant discussion, and I'm aware that my interest in the
nonexperiential unconscious and the double-prediction theory does not impress
most as clinically relevant.  3. I have tried to start some clinically relevant
discussion by bringing up the ideas of Hoffman, but there was very little
response other than to tell me that Ferensci had already presented these.  Even
if this were completely true (which I doubt), this is not a reason for not
discussing them.  Recently I have tried to revive the discussion on Chris
Mawson's very interesting case material but with no success.  4. It seems to me
that listmembers should support theoretical discussion even if it does not have
immediate obvious clinical application because nature is like a jigsaw
puzzle--some of the pieces with no apparent clinical relevance may be necessary
connecting links to those that are relevant.  I would like to know if
listmembers disagree with me on this and why.  5. One private message suggested
that in my discussions I appear to have an excessive need to "win the argument."
I won't deny the pleasure in winning (though I never get enough feedback to know
how many are persuaded), but my real purpose at the conscious rational level is
my belief that the truth is important and that scientific debate helps discover
the truth by comparing the best arguments on both sides.  I persist in a debate
until I am sure that all participants have presented their best arguments. In a
recent message I asked lurkers to indicate in a private message whether they
agreed or disagreed that the Masson controversy is evidence for a problem with
the avoidance of discussion in psychoanalysis.  I received no messages either
way and wonder why.  In my view, one purpose of scientific debate is for the
less biased members of the audience to try to reach a conclusion, if possible,
on which side if any is correct.  How are new ideas to become incorporated into
psychoanalysis if nobody is willing to struggle for a consensus (provisional, of
course, until a better idea appears)?  6. Is it possible that most listmembers
don't believe that new ideas are needed in psychoanalysis and that those who try
to promote new ideas are mere "irritants."  Is it possible that most listmembers
only want news about conferences etc. and would prefer that there be no debate
on this forum?  7. Jim Knock has claimed that if I examine my motivation I will
understand why there are so few responses to my posts.  If others share jim's
belief, I hope they will help me understand what they think are my motives and
how I can change in order to receive more feedback.
Eric Gillett, M.D.  [log in to unmask]