In a message dated 97-03-24 00:42:49 EST, you write:

<< Dr. Mittleman, you are right on target regarding the institutes.  On the
subject of couchwork, no one who has not undergone serious analysis on the
couch could possibly understand the dynamic effect of that work.  There is an
isolation and inability to use cues from the analyst for determining your
response.  All is from within and nothing equals that experience in depth.>>


I don't think Freud was ever on the couch--at least not analyzed by someone
else for a "lengthy" period of time.  Aren't the analyst's words, tone of
voice, silences, etc. all "cues" which the patient can react to?  Also, the
couch (like other phenomena in treatment) can also be used for defensive
purposes by both therapist and patient, at different times, for different
reasons.  But I do think the couch is still helpful.  Also, what is "serious"
analysis?  My point is, definitions for what constitutes "analytic" work are
complicated, at the very least, and there are too many subtleties for it to
boil down to "the use of the couch," or "2 versus 5 times a week."

David