I think that it is risky to accept that any account by Masson is a
reliable indicator of what in fact happened (this in response to Eric
Gillett citing Masson in support of Eric's views). As to my view of
the openness of analysis: well, it simple. Sometimes analysis is and
sometimes it isn't. When it isn't, it probably should be. But that
makes it no different from most other disciples, esp. disciples with a
combined, practical/therapeutic and intellectual/theoretical mandate.
 
What I have problems with are accounts -- and here I think Gillett and
Masson are alike -- that treat organized analysis as a monolith. Certainly
it is not now and, except for local periods and places, I doubt that it
ever has been.
 
 --
 
Andrew Brook, Professor of Philosophy
Director, Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies
Member, Canadian Psychoanalytic Society
2217 Dunton Tower, Carleton University
1125 Col. By Drive, Ottawa, CANADA   K1S 5B6
Ph: (613) 520-3597   Fax: (613) 520-3985
Email: [log in to unmask]