Elaboration 18

Psycho-Analysis was known to be sham, a fraud, in 1930 or so. It is a superstition dating back from Herodotus' time. Analogue with psychology, I usually call it pseudo. Pseudoanalysis, then, is an illness of the mind itself, or, as Karl Kraus put it, 'it is the disease it purports to cure'. According to Salter, Jastrow said that: "the historian of psychology in the future may well regard the great mass of present day psychoanalytic literature as one of the strangest anomalies and fantastic vagaries of the early twentieth century." Since this was roughly 1930, these future historians may still (1985) not be around. What scientist would dream of putting something in first and search for it later, being elated to find it then? Freud himself showed us this sort of science. "The mechanism of our curative method, is indeed quite easy to understand. We give the patient the conscious idea of what he may expect to find ...". Pseudoanalysis thus 'induces' the insanity, whether it is in a normal (?) person or in a real patient. Indeed it is known that a normal person, after being pseudoanalyzed, appears with a neurosis. Not for nothing, are all analysts agreed that one must have been analyzed himself first, in order to become a good analyst. It means that one has to be made crazy first in order to behave crazy, and induce crazy-ness. Freud was not wholly sane, a drug addict, no scientist, although, his sexual theory came at a very opportune moment in history, the aftermath of the Victorian era. The term 'psycho (logical) analysis' is from one of the (three) brothers Janet, Pierre. There is plenty of gay nonsense in Salter's excellent work on it ('The Case Against Psycho-Analysis'). Repeatedly he has to warn the reader that Freud was quite serious in the following or the foregoing citation in his book. The nonsense of dream interpretation has been man's hankering from time immemorial. Naturally, everybody wants to know what will happen in the future (especially with regard to football pools). Herodotus is full of these dream interpretations. He also, speaks of Xerxes' uncle Artabanus who had a commonsensical view upon dream content. We encounter a scientifical topic as 'day-rest' in it, the phenomenon that events from the past, preferably the day before, are recognizable to some degree in the dream (all ideation 'is' history). Why should only one dream, in a multitude, the very last one in a night of perhaps thousands of them, the one that one can remember (because one awakes in its tail) be significant, the others not? I did an experiment myself with 'interpretation'. From literature, I dug up a report from a dream that the unhappy subject had made after being shown an emotionally tinged film (birth of child). (From Neisser's 'Cognitive Psychology', page 159-160). The pseudological significance of dream content (nay, reported content) with the prior experience was then thought to be high. The report tallied, (it was thought) perfectly with the experience, with the film. I showed this report (verbatim) to several persons but, telling a different story of the wretched film, an execution, a fall from a tower, etc. Most of the persons found excellent agreement with the report of the dream! Freud was?"An old man who believed in dreams." (Odyssey). While he was discussing the question of whether a man could have hysteria (lacking an uterus, a hysterus), in Nancy, people where cured from illnesses completely beyond medicine of today. He was the man who would deal mind-science the severest blow, sanity being completely lost.