Talk:Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The amount of detailed criticism in the body of the article seems highly disproportionate in length and heavily POV, so I'm suggesting removing them until they can be summarised. While these criticisms may be legitimate, the article contains little if any rebuttal, and for this reason the article as it stands does not meet a good article standard. Mostlyharmless

Freud’s epigons hate Masson, who has written one of the most searing exposés of psychoanalysis: “Final Analysis” [1]. I fully agree with Mostlyharmless so I tried to balance a bit the biased article with a paragraph with a referent to Masson’s web site. However, the article still needs a lot of NPOV correction! —Cesar Tort 02:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The only way that occurs to me to immediately make the article NPOV is to delete the Malcolm’s court case affair. It is not really germane to Masson’s critical work on psychoanalysis, much less to his humanitarian work on animals —Masson’s bestsellers!

Similarly, the article’s paragraph on Masson’s The Assault on Truth was totally biased against Masson (and contained self-reference to Ferenczi). There were two ways to make it NPOV: to present Masson’s case or to reduce it to a minimum. Provisionally I chose the later. If anyone wants to revert the complete paragraph, a balancing paragraph should be added as well.

Of course, after my deletions the short article is even shorter. It needs to be expanded (Masson’s very important books, Against Therapy and Final Analysis are not even mentioned in the text!). I’ll try to do it in the future but for the moment I just want to get rid of the NPOV tag. —Cesar Tort 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually this so-called praise [2] is plainly the truth about that excellent book.

All guru admirers don't like their gurus to be criticized, even when criticism is based on truth and motivated by seeking truth.

How can their hearts and minds be opened for genuine criticism??

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.59.55 (talk • contribs)

Best of all: the 'guru' is giving good example by having an open heart and mind him/herself.

When he talks like Mr. Schiffer (Masson's training analyzer) people will not be encouraged (page 34): Schiffer said I only wanted to go out of a desire for vengeance, and if I did, he would see to it that I lost the battle. He would claim I was paranoid, and delusional, and that I was inventing it all. He would calmly deny my story. He said, "And whom, Masson, do you think they will believe? You, a first-year candidate, not even a medical doctor, or me, Irvine Schiffer, training analyst, and an officer of the Toronto Psychoanalytic Institute?" 88.73.38.110 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, what Mr. Schiffer said about his planned reactions to Masson's wish of sharing his experiences with Schiffer with somebody else, would most probably have come true. It's like Jones did with Ferenczi, in some way. And it is also true that most people believe to the words uttered by the person highest in hierarchy (the hierarchy they 'belong' to.) 88.73.37.170 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi 88.73.37.170: I know you are new to Wiki. May I tell you that these talk pages are for editorial discussions only, i.e., discussing the content or planned changes of content in articles?

If you want to communicate with me about Masson or subjects unrelated to editorial changes may I suggest do it in my subpage?: User_talk:Cesar_Tort/discussion. Also, please log in as I advised at the bottom of this page. Respectfully, Cesar Tort 08:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ave Cesar, yes, you may tell me that, thank you. Maybe this topic is going to result in a planned change of content of this article. How do you know?? Until I myself don't know I am going to continue here and not on your subpage, with your kind allowance, of course. Perhaps I am going to log in when I find a suitable name, perhaps not. 88.73.128.101 09:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again 88.73.37.170. It’s easier to talk to a name than to a dry number, especially for personal communications when you have your own user page.

I totally agree with you in what you say about that bastard called Schiffer. However, it’s just barely related to editorial changes today. We are supposed to focus on that (for instance my two questions to you at the bottom of this page). —Cesar Tort 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the quotations of Final Analysis because they’re totally misleading. As stated above, Masson’s book is an exposé of the cult called psychoanalysis. The quotations suggest instead that Masson is a fan of analysis! —Cesar Tort 22:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. Have you read them attentively? The quotations stated that Masson has been a fan of what he imagined to be the aim(s) of analysis; beautiful aims indeed that he wanted to stand for.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.... (talk • contribs)

Most probably analysis —in reality— stands for paternal authority unquestioned. 88.73.34.170 09:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In this article you can read about the idea that the father is always right and the child (or some other powerless peoples) is always wrong, about the idea, that criticizing the 'father' is a sign of 'illness': [3]. No mother there, though. 88.73.34.170 09:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I also removed defunct external links; articles of non-English web sites and duplicated sites. —Cesar Tort 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you removed a lot of stuff.

I do hope that you don't remove this quotation, Cesar, the new one.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.... (talk • contribs)

"I rarely lose my temper, but at this rudeness, and after listening to Kriegel's illiterate seminars over several weeks, I could no longer control myself. I jumped up, clenched my fists, and confronted him. You haven’t taught us a thing. You have no business teaching at all, you miserable, ignorant fool." (page 111, FINAL ANALYSIS). This is fun, I enjoyed this story, made me laugh with pleasure.

I wonder whether Freud has ever written anything about emotions.88.73.22.241 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

To understand the Vienna quack’s lack of empathy toward his clients, besides Masson’s books you may take a look at Thomas Szasz’s Anti-Freud and The Myth of Psychotherapy. Also, the first critical biography of Freud is now available: Louis Berger’s Freud: Darkness in the Midst of Vision —stupendous readings! —Cesar Tort 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked for the book of Breger at Amazon, see what they have written about it: [4] 88.73.22.241 20:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ****

Dalai Lama is very interested in brain and mind and compassion/empathy and wisdom/science; don't know whether and how he connected emotions with truth and viceversa [5] Austerlitz 88.72.1.253 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *****

Do you know that Masson wrote an entire book against gurus of any sort? —Cesar Tort 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this one My Father's Guru: A Journey Through Spirituality and Disillusion?

Austerlitz 07:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Masson says that there are no perfect gurus, and that socalled gurus are authoritarian by nature, so to speak. But in this book he also refers to the fact that his mother later on had a guru of her own, his name was John Levy and Masson doesn't say anything critical about that guy in this book.

Austerlitz 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This [6] is about emotions and politics, not about truth, though. The rage and hatred deriving from childhood need not be lived within religious context. Austerlitz

Mr. Schiffer about truth:"The truth," he said rather smugly, "is reserved for this room. In the world, I play the game, and so does everybody who does not want to lose." He said it pointedly. (page 70)

• Mr. Masson about Schiffer and himself:I had no sense of what was proper, where and when to reveal what I really thought. One day, I was going to get myself into trouble. He was right. It was a fair criticism of something he had seen in me that I had not seen in myself. But it did not still my deepening disappointment in him. (page 70, no gap between those quotations)

OF course Schiffer was not right.

User 88.73.59.55: Please sign all of your comments in this talk page by typing four tildes (~). Thank you!—Cesar Tort 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

O.k., for future. (I've signed an old one and now it seems to be written today, after your recommendation of certain books.) 88.73.22.241 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You may try also to indent your entries. --Cesar Tort 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It would also be much easier if you log in. Once you do it you can edit from any PC with your name (I use my real name) or a pseudonym.

May I suggest to replace the following quotation?:

Indeed, I did not see how compassion, kindliness, and sympathy could be artificially conjured up. I worried for myself. Did I have a good heart? Yes, on balance, I thought I did. But what Dr. Thompson had just shown me was not merely a good heart, it was an open heart, one that was not afraid of emotional generosity. Did I have that as well? On balance, I would say no, I did not. Was this a quality I would gain, as part of my training? I could not see how I could acquire an "open heart" merely by reading, or by studying (page 16).

The above block is not really germane to explain Masson’s exposé of analysis —and psychiatry too. —Cesar Tort

It shows that in spite of all narrow-minded psychoanalysts existing there is the possibility of coming across a caring one, even if he might be wrong with his presumptions and interpretations, too. That's important to show. Because Masson has been asking himself whether the incredible experiences he made with those psychopeople were an aberration from the genuine core or whether they were the 'natural' result of a basically false theory. 88.73.47.141 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally he has come to the conclusion that the theory is false, it does not fit with reality. But he holds to believing that listening attentively and patiently -he even says 'humbly'- to another person can bring about healing. And, he doesn't claim that psychotherapists or -analysts have to be malicious people by necessity. 88.73.47.141 14:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be obvious for us who have read the book. My concern is that the Wikipedia readership may get the wrong conclusion: that there are many empathetic analysts. We cannot fill the article up with quotations. We must be very selective. I still think that, out of due context, this quotation is grossly misleading and should be removed. —Cesar Tort 16:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

O.k., maybe you are right, remove it. But leave it here on the discussion page. 88.73.38.206 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

César Tort writes: What about this one?:

“When a child manifests gross pathology...” these words startled me into consciousness. They were enunciated, for emphasis, very slowly, and in a booming voice. There could be no doubt about it, the department chairman was a fine orator. He had acted on the stage. His voice, his urban wit, his friendliness, his poise, his great knowledge of [psychiatric] literature were all admirable. He laughed a great deal. He liked to make jokes. You had to like him.

But you did not have to like what he said. And I did not. What was it to “manifest gross pathology”? In this case, an eight-year-old boy was the “identified” patient. The word “identified” was a popular and venerable psychiatric term. He had been “identified” as the patient by his mother and father, simply because he was not doing well at school, he had few friends, and he was a “problem” at home. How was this, I wondered at the time, “gross pathology”? Where was I? I was at grand rounds.

“Grand rounds” was the visit of psychiatric hospitals in the city of Toronto during Masson’s training for analyst. The hospital staff met and a senior psychiatrist presented a case of one of the hospitalized patients. As Masson observed, this was humiliating for the patient:

It soon became apparent that every presentation of therapy was only good as the intellect and heart of the presenter. You did not, you could not, learn about the patient, but you learned plenty about the presenter [...].

So here was a department chairman talking about still another “patient”, Jill, nineteen, “who was admitted to the hospital with a schizophrenic psychotic decompensation”.

The department chairman who presented these cases was a respected psychiatrist who believed in electroshock. Masson continues:

How did we know, for example, that somebody was “sick”? It was simple: they were brought to the hospital. The chairman made it clear that a person who had been “identified” as a patient by the family, was, in fact, disturbed in a psychiatric way. People apparently did not err when it came to making these kinds of home diagnoses. Thus, he told us, speaking of the “maladjusted” (a medical term?) child, that we should accept

that the “identified” patient is “sicker” than the others. A study by S. Wolff (in the British Journal of Psychiatry) lends support to the family’s identification of its most disturbed member as the “sick one”.

To me, this was suspiciously convenient for the psychiatrist. What gave the psychiatric community this power? (pages 48-51).

—Cesar Tort 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The "psychiatric community" is part of the states' power systems. 88.73.34.170 09:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They have been given the power to hospitalize people against their will and treat them with psychopharmaka or electroshocks against their will, too, claiming to know what is going on.

Psychologists, as long as they are not allowed to hospitalize people or to prescribe psychopharmaka, too, cannot be as dangerous as psychiatrists or other people being part of the so-called Health care system.

Family is the smallest circle of power there is, the nest for adaptation to society, most of the cases. Usually nobody is going to get hospitalized by force when there is not family or other so called 'dear ones' to look for it to be done.

Maybe beyond this kind of decision there is sort of hatred against the family member labelled to be disturbingly 'sick'. 88.73.34.138 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Family is behind the nastiest psychiatry. Have you read my first letter in my user talk page? Also, have you read the Anti-psychiatry article? Recently I was dragged to an arbitration dispute and the issue of involuntary treatment was hotly discussed there [7]. —Cesar Tort 16:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cesar, I went to the pages you have linked and I've read some of it. I also read some letter of yours about Wikipedia and establishment. I think my main interest is autonomy and justice and openhearted/minded dialogue, not confined to psychiatry, etc. 88.73.38.73 14:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I already removed the bold-typed block. What do you think of the above block I propose instead? Is it too long to include it in article? By the way, I still think it would be much easier to talk to you if you log in (and chose a pseudonym if you don’t want to reveal your real name). --Cesar Tort 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's too long, given the fact that I would like to suggest quotation of -let's say- half of that book. And I can't do this, when you chose long quotations like that. Is this your favourite topic? the crime of labelling innocent people with so-called mental illnesses just because they don't please some establishment or another?? or do you think it to be the topic Masson's book is mainly about? 88.73.31.151 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

When I was a teenager my mad mother sent me to a mad psychoanalyst because I didn’t want to go to the Catholic Mass. The analyst is the most well-known psychoanalyst in the Mexican media system. He committed a crime with me: the subject of my first two books (something far more horrible than Masson’s story, since I was a minor). I published those books for a year and a half in Spanish but, for copyright reasons, I removed them a few months ago from my website. I already have finished my third book but still have many more to write. It’s pay back time. If you have seen V for Vendetta (film) you’ll know what kind of person you are talking to. —Cesar Tort 19:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of Vendetta you want? a personal one? 88.73.33.136 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The analyst that my mother hired fucked me psychologically in his office on my mother’s behalf. The aim of publishing is to get our asses even. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know this group? I've found it just now. [8]. Have you ever talked to Daniel Burston? Seems as if he had some connections with psychopeople in Mexico, look here: [9].

No, I have not seen the film you mention. 88.73.20.112 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I’ve never talked to Burston. “Psychopeople” in Mexico, as in other countries, are generally stupid: I call them "Neanderthals". Only real critics of psychiatry, psychoanalysis and clinical psychology have some emotional intelligence. Incidentally, since I’m working in my 4th book against the Neanderthals I’m taking a Wiki-break and will do some editing only on Sundays. But I still have some hours to talk to you here... (it’s 5:43 PM here in Mexico City). —Cesar Tort 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the white coats that makes them feel and look like medical doctors what they in fact are. The coat is their passport of sanity. Psychoanalysts —at least in the United States of America— must be medical doctors as well, this is prescribed by law.

Hi again. If you don’t want to log in it’s OK. No problem. But since you use various IP numbers could you at least sign with a name or pseudonym even though it will appear in red (since you have not logged in yet)? --Cesar Tort 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to sign in, but it didn't work for some unknown reason (unknown to me).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.3.17 (talk • contribs)

Just write Y (“Y” is the name or pseudonym you may chose). Click on "Edit this page" now so you can see how I used brackets around "User:Y|Y", or around my own signature. —Cesar Tort 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. But you have to write your name; not mine (which I just erased). --Cesar Tort 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Austerlitz****. Hi Cesar, using your brackets and signs, the colour remains red. 88.72.3.126 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Austerlitz ****

Austerlitz**** Now it is black. What's the use of using those brackets and signs? to get colour red??

Yes: that is precisely the objective: that your signature appears red (if you want it blue you must log in, but many use red signatures). By the way, Why do you use so many ** in your signature? --Cesar Tort 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Preface he writes: "Thus, until now it has been almost impossible to get an internal view of this "men’s club" with its initiation rites; expectations of membership loyalty over truth; pressures to accept concepts handed down by the leader, no matter how irrational; xenophobic banding together against outsiders; and the punishment of anyone who poses questions or finally wants out. (page 1) and page 4 of the Preface, The price for joining this fraternity is silence about its membership policy. Corruption is incorporated, not exposed; prejudice and bias have been accepted, even embraced. It is a high price to pay for membership. This book examines that fraternity and that price, and in the end describes a pathway to freedom."

Hello Cesar, what to you think about quoting one of these quotations in the text of the article?? I wonder how much impact this book had on the so called Professionals, whether it had any. Do you know about that? Has it been neglected because of anti-truth-defense-mechanisms? Austerlitz**** 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been ignored because Neanderthalism is endemic in the profession. To fully understand what has happened in the cult called psychoanalysis you have to read another analyst who, like Masson, gave up the cult: Alice Miller. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this letter and the answer of Alice Miller? [10].

I feel uncomfortable with cults (usually*) and churches, too. Though some of them are really very beautiful. 88.72.2.137 08:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)]]. Peace Monument of Austerlitz **** what CHAOS this is looking like!

You don’t have to make a mess of this talk page :) —Cesar Tort 10:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Daniel Burston [11] Freud and the other 'Fathers' (and mothers?) of Analysis thought children or youngsters who want to criticize and rebel against 'authority' to be somehow ill, mentally, I suppose. Burston’s article —though very interesting and enlightening— nonetheless tries to blame Masson and Miller for the absence of dialogue within psychoanalytical establishment about that topic. Very stupid, I think, to say it openly. I wonder how a person can be so intelligent and stupid at the same time. Austerlitz**** 14:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Burston is just another Neanderthal. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Mr. Schiffer(Masson's training analyzer):"I don't want intelligence, but loyalty. You can stick your intelligence up your ass" he shouted at me. (page 81)

• We don't know whether this means that loyalty is the main quality for an analyst, since Mr. Schiffer before speaking thus had flown into a rage.

But one can understand that criticism and loyalty are thought to be opposites, in his beliefsystem. Austerlitz 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *****

Hi Austerlitz. Tomorrow Sunday I will answer your several questions here and in my subpage. For the moment I’m only replacing your IP numbers for your chosen name (as stated above, you should sign “Austerlitz” since you use different IP numbers). —Cesar Tort 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. OK, your first sentence; as for the rest, I don't care. Do what you like.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Austerlitz**** (talk • contribs)

Hi Austerlitz. It’s just a Wikipedia policy to sign entries; not mine. —Cesar Tort 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. I hope wikipedia is not Wilberian or something like that with the colours they have chosen. Austerlitz Peace Monument ****

No, but I hope you don’t mind to chose only one signature? —Cesar Tort 10:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

For ever, you mean? for eternity?? How long is it that I have to sign as Austerlitz, Cesar?

If you log in your signature would appear in blue automatically every time you sign with four tildes. If you don’t want to log in, you can simply copy and paste your signature every time you post something here. —Cesar Tort 18:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ave Cesar, could you please explain this a little bit? Austerlitz****

Please never sign your posts with my signature again. I just replaced my signature with yours :)

I explained today what “Neanderthalism” means in my 17:48 (UTC) entry in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion. —Cesar Tort 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your explanation (quotation) you have given there:

As you know, I’m working on a 10-volume autobiographical work. “Neanderthal” is my own pet (and hate) word to refer to people that, because of the abuse in their childhoods, cannot feel empathy toward another victim. There are six levels of “Neanderthalism” which, as stated above, have to do with the Psychogenic mode. There are subcategories too. Breggin and deMause are pretty close to what I call the “overman” category. But they’re not overmen yet...

Austerlitz:

After a while old discussions in the articles’ talk pages are archived. Do you know that all of these quotations you are posting in this talk page will be archived (and once archived no one can edit them further)?

I would recommend instead concentrating our efforts in improving the article :) —Cesar Tort 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cesar:

The article has been improved quite a lot in the meantime. Has it been you? But the link to your article has been removed. Has it been you, too?

(Don't understand what you say about archivation and edition of these quotations I have been posting on the talk page.)

Austerlitz *****

Rockpocket removed it today and I don't mind. You can click the “history” button to see who did the copyedits. (I also suggest you to click on the “watchlist” button in your favorite articles so you can easily see the changes every time you enter Wikipedia.)

Take a look at the archived talk pages in either the Psychiatry or the Anti-psychiatry articles. What I mean is that everything you post in this page will be archived; I mean, it will disappear from this main talk page about Masson. --Cesar Tort 07:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of your article, Cesar, Austerlitz is very keen to link to it, so i suggested the

WP:EL? Rockpocket

07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven’t read WP:EL. I guess it’s ok with me if Austerlitz wants to link it to the Anti-psychiatry article. —Cesar Tort 08:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have linked it there, because: I don't want to be more popish than the pope, if you understand what I mean. Austerlitz 88.72.3.71 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes: it's a very common saying in Spanish-speaking countries. But Geni removed it some hours ago, as you can see in Anti-psychiatry's talk page. --Cesar Tort 18:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses

I presume the content in parenthesis in the following quote is not actually in the book: "the one I had written with my wife, Terri, and which Schiffer [Masson's abusive analyst] had claimed as his" The term "abusive" appears to be editorialising and is potentially libelous unless his analyst was convicted of abuse (unlikely, i would imagine). Therefore, i'm removing the term unless someone confirm it is in the book or can provide reliable third party evidence that his analyst was abusive. Rockpocket 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the quotation: Somewhat to my surprise, I was accepted for membership in the society [the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Society]. I was looking forward to giving my inaugural paper, "The Navel of Neurosis: Trauma, Memory and Denial," the one I had written with my wife, Terri, and which Schiffer [Masson's analyst] had claimed as his (page 136).

• The words in Parenthesis are not in the book, I mean not within the text of this quotation.

I wonder whether 'Schiffer' really has published that inaugural paper under his name, with his name on it. Austerlitz 88.72.1.136 05:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to address those requests, Cesar. However, i don't feel you addressed my concerns fully:

• "Masson's psychoanalytic practice was not very successful" - we need a reliable source that states this, otherwise who judges what is successful?

I can delete that opening phrase (which BTW I didn’t write it). —Cesar Tort 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• "he was appointed by Eissler himself to become his successor as the guardian of the Freud archives after both him and Anna Freud died" - don't need a source for this, per se, it appears to be pretty well established. However, i'm confused. How do you get appointed "by Eissler himself" when Eissler is already dead? Or perhaps it is supposed to mean he was appointed after Freud was dead. Its not clear to me.

My grammar was imprecise. I meant that Eissler appointed him while Eissler was still alive (he was already very old). —Cesar Tort 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• "after Masson was interviewed by a reporter his theories were published in the New Yorker to the dismay of the psychoanalytic establishment." - my request here was for a source that noted the establishment's dismay. We need a reliable that says that, otherwise who decides what the establishment is, and how do we know it was dismayed? Rockpocket 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn’t write it and will modify the sentence. —Cesar Tort 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I now think we may leave this last sentence as it is. It is a very well known fact in the analytic community that Eissler was bombarded by dozens of telephone calls from all over the analytic world when his protégée, Masson, did the pronunciations against Freud in the New Yorker. —Cesar Tort 08:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, i'll take your word for it. However, such content really should relate to a secondary source. Others, in the future, may delete it as unencyclopaedic editorialising without one. Rockpocket 08:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cesar, by New Yorker you mean the New York Times? or the Magazine? Or is it the same? Austerlitz 88.72.2.225 10:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody (from here) read this two-part article in the New York Times?

• The two-part article was published in the "Science" section of the Times on two successive Tuesdays, August 14, and August 21,1981.

Austerlitz 88.72.2.223 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• How can one get those articles of the New York Times to read by yourself?

Austerlitz 88.72.1.135 05:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Most probably those are the two articles -written by Blumenthal- Masson is talking about:

published August 18, 1981 August 25, 1981

The dates differ: in Masson's book Final Analysis he writes that the two-part article has been published on Tuesday August 14 and August 21, 1981, and in the archives of the New York Times it seems to have been published on Saturday August 18 and August 25, 1981. I don't think that Masson has made an error with the dates, he is a very careful thinker and writer. Perhaps the dates have been changed online, or maybe those different days and numbers have some deeper (cabbalistic or so) meaning. Austerlitz 88.72.3.106 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"As Masson recounts in Final Analysis, word of his controversial position reached the New Yorker Magazine, and after Masson was interviewed by a reporter his theories were published in the New Yorker to the dismay of the psychoanalytic establishment." Austerlitz 88.72.1.135 05:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you should request a citation by typing {{fact}} after the sentence in the article. If the author cannot provide a source proving it, then you may delete it. If you have definative evidence that is not true, then provide it here and change it immediately. Rockpocket 05:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Austerlitz 88.72.1.142 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed part of it. Austerlitz 88.72.2.188 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is not true that it has been the New Yorker Magazine, it has been the New York Times from the beginning. It doesn't seem to be thus important for the content of the information, which Newspaper or Magazine has been in between, but when you want to look for the article you must know where to look for.

I have extended the quotations from Final Analysis. The reporter who made the interview with Masson and who wrote the article in the New York Times has been Ralph Blumenthal, and with his name I've found some facts published by the

about the story of dismission.

• [12]
• [13] Here is another article written by Ralph Blumenthal, published the 25th of August 1981. The articles published on August 14, and August 21, 1981, I have not found yet.

Austerlitz 88.72.2.188 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) *****

Thanks for those citations, i have added them to the article. Rockpocket 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks, too, you've found a good place for this article of Ralph Blumenthal.

Austerlitz 88.72.2.132 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: By shifting the emphasis from a real world of sadness, misery and cruelty to an internal stage on which actors performed invented dramas for an invisible audience of their own creation, Dr. Masson said at Yale, Freud began a trend away from the real world that, it seems to be, has come to a dead halt in the present-day sterility of psychoanalysis throughout the world. (source: the above linked articles of Blumenthal) Austerlitz 88.72.2.188 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays there is a strong beliefsystem holding to the belief that there are many different truths, nothing else. It's like blind people surrounding an elephant from their own viewpoint, one saying he has a tusk, the other one saying he has a tail and the last one -a dwarf without arms and legs- saying that there is only void. Austerlitz 88.72.2.132 07:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz. I see you are still inserting quotations here in the talk page. As soon as this page reaches a certain size all of our talking here will be removed (and archived).

By the way, I see you placed brackets around the word Tuesday in the article. I claim no expertise on wiki-etiquette but I guess it’s unnecessary.

Also, the words “successfully combining old wisdom...” may sound pov to some editors. Whether we like it or not I have heard that encyclopedic language must be dry. —Cesar Tort 00:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Burston writes here that Erich Fromm has been part of what he calls Freud's "loyal opposition" [14].

• I wonder what he thinks that to be, what might be the difference between "loyal opposition" and "illoyal (?) opposition".

Austerlitz 88.72.1.142 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) *****

How is it realized? Do members have to take an oath on certain convictions? that they will stick to them even if they are not true? On the Website of IPA you can read:

The IPA is the world’s primary accrediting and regulatory body for psychoanalysis. Our mission is to assure the continued vigour and development of psychoanalysis for the benefit of psychoanalytic patients. We work in partnership with our 70 constituent organizations in 33 countries to support our 11,500 Members.

Our aims include creating new psychoanalytic groups, stimulating debate, conducting research, developing training policies and establishing links with other bodies. We organize a large biennial Congress which is open to all [15] Austerlitz 88.72.1.200 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ****

Masson has been a member at San Francisco, most probably here [16] Austerlitz 88.72.1.200 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ****

• Don't know whether this Institute has got membership policy or sort of beliefsystems too; or whether it reallyreally is for free thought, debate and membership?? [17]

Austerlitz 88.72.2.189 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *****

• The knowledge is sold [18]
• You must be or a modern scientist or a buddhist if you want to take part into this knowledge osmosis. Austerlitz 88.72.2.202 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"In psychoanalytical circles there has been significant criticism of Masson's hypothesis about Freud's alleged suppression of abuse." Who has written this? Doesn't seem true to me. Where have you found some critics about the content of Masson's findings? As far as I have understood those psychoanalytical circles are not able to criticize what they think to be dangerous in some way or another. Austerlitz 88.72.1.130 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz. I have just commented about this page in my user subpage.

You can edit the article and change whatever you deem it necessary, even controversial issues, if you can support it with sources.

I moved some of your posts below in this talk page since they make more sense chronologically.

Also, I am not sure if it’s ok with wiki-etiquette to put blue on dates August 14, 21 and 1981, as it seems you did in article :) Cesar Tort 01:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To the world at large, Eissler is known only as the guileless analyst who was betrayed and sued by his protege Jeffrey Masson. This is quotation from her article in The New York Times about Eissler. I don't have any idea why she hated Masson. But she did hate him, as it seems to me. Austerlitz 88.72.2.186 21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Encountering Eissler at a gathering of analysts was like coming upon an orchid in a hayfield. That's another quotation from that little article about Eissler. Here she is confusing him with Masson - I guess. Austerlitz 88.72.4.38 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz. If Daniel allows it, we may discuss these issues in his forum (as we have discussed there Alice Miller issues that do not relate to improving the wiki article). —Cesar Tort 02:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, do you know Malcolm's book "Vater, lieber Vater..." ? Austerlitz 88.72.18.255 06:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I liked visiting Eissler in his home in New York. His office was a delight to me: completely buried in papers, articles, and books. What mattered most for me and seemingly for Eissler during my visits was that we got to sit in his office and talk psychoanalytic history. It is hard for me now, from this distance, and with all that has happened in between, to recapture the mood it put me in, but there is no doubt that I was completely absorbed. I felt, rightly, that I had a great deal to learn from Eissler, and I was a good and willing pupil. Somehow, too, it seemed "significant", something that had always been lacking in my life when I was a professor of Sanskrit. Eissler and I could move, on one sentence, from some obscure topic in the history of psychoanalysis to the nature of fear.
Why, I asked him, did people seem to seek out situations that actually terrified them? "Ah", he would say, "you are asking for the source of counterphobia. Did I ever show you the unpublished discussion of this by Fenichel? Or when I would talk about my analytic training, and what I considered wrong with it, he would pull out the minutes of the New York Psychoanalytical Society from the early sixties, its heyday,and read with evident pleasure the eccentric comments by Isakower. (pages 121,122 Final Analysis).

hello Cesar, this quotation is going to improve the article, sooner or later. Austerlitz 88.72.3.60 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've quoted some more phrases to make better understand how much Masson enjoyed the dialogue with Eissler. Austerlitz 88.72.4.51 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz. As you see, the quotations have been archived in both the article and in this talk page. It’s unnecessary to quote from the Malcolm affair. Also, instead of doing lots of minor copyedits in article, could you just copy and paste the entire document to your word processor (and do all the changes in a single move)? That way I won’t need to check step by step all of the recent changes :) Cesar Tort 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to check step by step all of the recent changes, Cesar? Ave* Austerlitz 88.72.1.120 05:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have in mind lots of minor edits for the same article the same day, it saves me a lot of work if you do them at once so I don’t have to review them step by step :) Cesar Tort 00:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Today I asked the same favor to other user: User talk:Svartulfr1 :) Cesar Tort 14:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I had never seen Dr. Eissler, nor he me. But he was not difficult to recognize. When I caught sight, of a tall, gaunt older man--at the time he was in his late sixties--in the lobby of the hotel where we were staying, looking like someone who had just stepped off the boat from Europe, dressed severely in a black suit with an almost haunted look about him, I knew it was Eissler.

And so I approached him. "Dr. Eissler, I presume. I am Jeff Masson." Eissler was genuinely taken aback.

"How did you know it was me?"

"Well, it was obvious."

"No, no, there is something else. There is something uncanny about this."

• He did not seem entirely certain that I had not used witchcraft to recognize him.

In many ways it was an unexpected friendship. Eissler was much older, and seemed to be everything I was not: conservative in his dress, brusque and apparently unfriendly in manner, spare in speech. But what Eissler and I experienced together was, while completely nonsexual, nonetheless romantic in some important sense of this word. For one, it was shot through with fantasy. For another, we both behaved as isf we were somehow infatuated, both intellectually and emotionally.

Part of the reason was that our beliefs, or in some people's views our prejudices, seemed to coincide. I had a great need for loudly proclaiming mine and seeing if I could find anybody who agreed with them. I rarely did. For example, I believed that psychoanalysis was diametrically opposed to all of the major ideas within classical psychiatry. At first I had expected, naively, that other analysts would share my low opinion of psychiatry. It always came as a disappointment to me to hear that a prominent analyst was active in psychiatry, though in fact many were. I found it an even greater shock to learn, for example, that the influential psychoanalyst Edith Jacobson tried to induce a number of her analytic patients to submit to electroshock treatment. I could not imagine a less analytic procedure than electroshock, and I was convinced that other analysts would agree. They did not. When analysts like Margaret Mahler used psychiatric terms such as "predispositional deficiency" to speak about children she considered "autistic" or "psychotic", I was disgusted, but I was convinced I was not alone. She greatly admired Leo Kanner's work in this area, which I abhorred. It was not only Mahler's language that I objected to; she believed, for example, that infants, "with varying degrees of intensity of cathexis, represent a body part for the mother, usually her illusory phallus." I think, now, that I was indeed alone. But I desperately longed to find a kindred spirit, and in Eissler I thought I had found such a person, a man who loved and hated with the same intensity, though less vociferously. ( pages 115, 116)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.12.229 (talk • contribs)

He did not leave them actually but he was told by a letter that he was no longer a member "since we have not received payment of your dues for the last three months," (Final Analysis, Page 204.) Austerlitz 88.72.12.229 16:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1984. Paperback: Penguin, 1985. (Translated into French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Finnish and Japanese.) Second English Edition: HarperCollins, New York (and London), 1992. Second German edition, Kore Verlag, 1994. Rpt. By Pocket Books with a new introduction, in 1999. New edition from Random House in 2003.

I can't find how to make a new section in this Talk page (I want to discuss the Life and Work section), so I'm adding my comments here:

I have added a short passage under the heading "Life and Work" linking to my articles challenging Masson's contentions from a non-psychoanalytic position. There is a lesser-known view of events arrived at by numerous researchers who, unlike those who recycle the received story as told by Freud in his later career, have closely examined the original documents. To quote one of the most recent of these revised versions, Kurt Eissler writes (2001, p. 115) of Freud's clinical methodology in the seduction theory period that its deficiencies "reduce the probability of gaining reliable data to zero". Close readings of letters and papers from that period indicate that patients did not report sexual abuse in early childhood as Freud later claimed; he arrived at his (preconceived) 'findings' by analytic inference, heavily dependent on the symbolic interpretation of patients' symptoms. Nor did Freud's claims involve the culpability of fathers. This innovation only came into his published accounts as late as 1925.

This is not the view of one or two maverick writers. A number of Freud scholars who are prepared to re-examine received accounts have come to similar conclusions (see below). The most detailed presentations of these conclusions are in the following articles:

Schimek, J. G. (1987), "Fact and fantasy in the seduction theory: a historical review." Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 35, 937-65.

Esterson, A. (1998), "Jeffrey Masson and Freud's seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths." History of the Human Sciences, 11 (1), 1-21: http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm

Esterson, A. (2001). "The mythologizing of psychoanalytic history: deception and self-deception in Freud’s accounts of the seduction theory episode." History of Psychiatry, xii, pp. 329-352: http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm

Several other authors have arrived at essentially the same conclusions in the following publications:

Cioffi, F. (1998 [1974]), "Was Freud a liar?", reprinted in Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience (Chicago and La Salle: Open Court, 1998), 199-204.

Schatzman, M. (1992), "Freud: who seduced whom?", New Scientist, 21, 34-7.

Israëls, H. and Schatzman, M. (1993), "The Seduction Theory", History of Psychiatry, iv, 23-59.

Esterson, A. (1993). Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud. (Chicago and La Salle: Open Court).

Scharnberg, M. (1993). The Non-Authentic Nature of Freud's Observations, Vol. 1, The Seduction Theory. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International).

Webster, R. (1995). Why Freud Was Wrong. (London: HarperCollins).

Eissler, K. R. (2001). Freud and the Seduction Theory. (New York: Int. Univ. Press).

Esterson 12:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that it is not true what you say here: "Close readings of letters and papers from that period indicate that patients did not report sexual abuse in early childhood as Freud later claimed; he arrived at his (preconceived) 'findings' by analytic inference, heavily dependent on the symbolic interpretation of patients' symptoms."

But it takes me some time to prove it by other quotations.

• with kind regards, Austerlitz 88.72.20.77 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey began to enjoy real success as a writer with his books about animals. His best-selling book, When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals, written with Susan McCarthy, has been translated into twenty languages, and sold nearly half a million copies in the United States alone.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.3.202 (talk • contribs)

nothing to do with Masson [19] Austerlitz 88.72.1.148 09:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) But: it has got the Wolfgang Staudte prize in 2004 2004 Final Solution, Rakesh Sharma, Indien 2003, 218 min Jury: Catherine Breillat, Regisseurin (Frankreich), Imruh Bakari, Festivalleiter (Tansania), Thomas Arslan, Regisseur (Deutschland) english link here: [20]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.3.202 (talk • contribs)

In November, 2003, Ballantine (Random House) reprinted three of Jeffrey's books: Assault on Truth, My Father's Guru, and Final Analysis, all with new prefaces. Austerlitz 88.72.6.211 14:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In 2003 there has been a new edition of "A Dark Science: Women, Sexuality and Psychiatry in the 19th Century" by Random House, too.

Austerlitz 88.72.4.240 10:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights by Tom Regan, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (Februar 2004),
  ISBN 0742533522
• The Cat Who Came in from the Cold (Wheeler Hardcover), Largeprint (2nd of march 2005),
  ISBN 1587249146
• Beauty in the Beasts: True Stories of Animals Who Choose to Do Good , by Kristin Von Kreisler , Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Jeremy P. Tarcher, Publisher, (May 2001),
  ISBN 158542093X
• Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today: American Subcultures, by Karen Iacobbo, Michael Iacobbo, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Praeger Publishers Inc.,U.S. (30. Juni 2006),
  ISBN 0275990168
• The Compassion of Animals: True Stories of Animal Courage and Kindness, by Kristin Von Kreisler, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Prima Publishing,U.S. (January 1999),
  ISBN 0761518088
• Why Buffalo Dance: Animal and Wilderness Meditations Through the Seasons, Susan Chernak McElroy, Tracy Pitts, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson , New World Library; Edition: 1st (Oktober 2006),
  ISBN 1577315421

To these (and some other) books Masson has written forwords.

Austerlitz 88.72.4.240 09:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is she? Good question. Austerlitz -- 88.72.13.133 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean "Which is it (the psychoanalytic community)?" —Cesar Tort 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to say: which psychoanalytic community? Is there one homogeneous group sharing the same point of view? -- 88.72.10.186 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

the question of representative opinion: another subject but the same problem [21]

• Mrs. Wachs doesn't hold the representative opinion of the German Buddhists. Who is going to decide?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.15.56 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Masson argues that Freud feared that granting the truth of these reports would hinder the acceptance of the psychoanalytic methods he had pioneered. The psychoanalytic community largely rejects Masson's conclusions.[citation needed]

Austerlitz -- 88.72.15.56 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you like that quotation I've inserted or not. But: before deleting it -in case you want to- please tell me why.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.1.5 07:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• [22] There are a few critical remarks towards Masson and Freud's "Seduction theory". As soon as I have got the impact of his idea, I am going to insert it. Of course - anybody who can do it right now- can do it.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.217 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

why do you describe or should I say why do you name Masson an "iconoclastic psychoanalyst"?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.0.166 21:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people are said to descend from their mothers -symbollically speaking of course. So why not mention Diana Masson and her ancestors, too?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.31.98 10:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia sites about

. quotation from sephardic wikipedia site: In a broader sense, the term Sephardi has come to include Jews of Arabic and Persian backgrounds who have no historical connection to Iberia except their use of a Sephardic style of liturgy. For religious purposes, Jews of these communities are considered to be "Sephardim", meaning not "Spanish Jews" but "Jews of the Spanish rite". (In the same way, Ashkenazim means "Jews of the German rite", whether or not their families actually originate in Germany.)

Jeffrey Masson says in his book "My father's Guru" that his parents were no Jews in the religious sense of the meaning, they -and so he and his sister- didn't not go to the

. I don't know whether the bar mitzvah rite is the same for every jewish group.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.8.226 09:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.91.245 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's

.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.91.245 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

i.e. the Chicago Osteopathic Hospital.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.13.246 (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Jeffrey M. Masson

• http://www.amma.de/eservice/ecards/fotos.php3
• http://www.myspace.com/krishnadas (you are okay)
• http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/

please note :UG Sings His Song (is has to be found on those sites, there is no direct link)

88.72.24.148 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) New Zealand belongs to a different time zone*

Hi Austerlitz. As explained several times in the archived talk page, this page is to discuss relevant proposed changes for the article; not a place for monologues or endless quotations. I will be archiving all irrelevant posts in Talk:Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson/Archive 1.

This said, thanks for your continuing efforts in improving the Jeffrey Masson article, which I believe is one of the most important of psychology articles. ―Cesar Tort 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cesar, has this been you? Congratulations, well done! Best wishes for a happy Year 2007,

Austerlitz 88.72.26.238 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• "He has two children. Ilan (10) and Manu (5)"

I think the ages should be removed. Who will be staring at this article eternally to change the ages every time one of this kids has a happy birthday?

BTW, Masson has just read this article and he has told me thru email: "You did a good job! Best, Jeff".

"You" are, of course, all editors involved in the improvement of this article.

—Cesar Tort 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He has no wikipedia entry until now. Judging from what Masson has written about him, for example: We sent each other our papers, and I noticed that Eissler almost never wrote something trivial. Whether I agreed with his ideas or not, I had to recognize that he was always engaged in serious, controversial, and significant research. When it came to Freud, the man, however, there was nothing too trivial for his close scrutinity. FINAL ANALYSIS, page 121. it IS WORTHWILE to make him known to wikipedia readers, too.

Masson could do that; in case he wants to spend some time on it.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.12.100 11:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Austerlitz: Just write a letter to Masson asking for a short article. He liked this article, as you can see above. We can do the Kurt Eissler wiki-formatting. —Cesar Tort 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cesar: I cannot write a letter to Masson, he has got to do so much, I am sure he is not going to answer.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.141 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Masson in his book "My Father's Guru" says that the family of his father has been of sephardic origin. Why did you change this to mizrahi? Austerlitz -- 88.72.22.230 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of the point of view in the section Reaction of psychoanalytic community: "Daniel Burston ... states ... a single etiological hypotheses [sic, is this a misspelling? one hypothesis, multiple hypotheses] ... Burston misunderstands [and goes on to repeat the misspelling]."

From what point of view does the editor say "Burton misunderstands"? I see citation needed at the beginning of this section and think another citation might be needed for these several sentences quoted here.

Additionally, it is interesting that Ana Freud, famously protective of her father's reputation, allowed Masson to edit Freud's letters after he had been removed from his position at the archives. Time permitting, I will attempt to follow-up on this. Dbm014 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of neutrality is not the only problem. The sentence 'Burston misunderstands that this has not been a matter of a single "etiological hypotheses" only but a decision about memory talking from experience or memory deriving from fantasy (which does not include real perpetrators)' seems muddled. It isn't clear to me what its author is trying to say. It should be either re-written or deleted. Skoojal (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Jeffrey Masson

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.135 (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[24], [25], [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.83.135 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [27], [28]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.135 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[29]. Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.135 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrase: "The problem is my truth is not your truth." given with quotationmarks in the text does not coincide with what J.M. Masson has said in the interview, according to my perception. I think it is best to quote what he can be heard to have said. Therefore I have to listen to the text another time.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.65.36 (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Masson says that from talk with Alexandra David-Neel there is a lengthy transcription. I wonder why it has not been published? (hi Jeffrey, just do it) Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.169 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Burston for example states that "Masson mistakenly argues that the validity of psychoanalysis hinges on a single etiological hypotheses -- namely, the seduction theory." ^[1] Burston misunderstands that this has not been a matter of a single "etiological hypotheses" only but a decision about memory talking from experience or memory deriving from fantasy (which does not include real perpetrators).

Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.201 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. 1986. A Dark Science: Women, Sexuality and Psychiatry in the Nineteenth Century.
   ISBN 0-374-13501-0
   , last edition 1988, (no German translation available)
2. 1988. Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing.
   ISBN 0-689-11929-1
   (German translation available)
3. 1990. Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of A Psychoanalyst. Addison-Wesley.
   ISBN 0-201-52368-X
   , new edition 2003, (no German translation available)

What is the reason? Why is it?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.39 (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• T.G. Vaidyanathan & Jeffrey J. Kripal (editors): VISHNU ON FREUD'S DESK : A Reader in Psychoanalysis and Hinduism, Oxford University Press

There is a chapter written by Masson: Part Five: Psychoanalytic Approaches to Hindu Mysticism, Myth and Ritual 233 10. Sex and Yoga: Psychoanalysis and the Indian Religious Experience J.M. Masson

How to insert it?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.4 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal: Please note this is not a "revised" edition. My understanding is that a revised edition is one in which part of the text of the original book is amended. The 1998 edition of The Assault on Truth is identical to previous editions, except that it contains a new Postscript. Esterson (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I regard this as pedantry. The word "revised" can be used either way. Skoojal (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal: As you have an aversion to pedantry, perhaps in future you will refrain from unnecessarily de-italicising words in my postings as you have done on more than one occasion. Esterson (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to this. I not only have an aversion to pedantry: I also have an aversion to off-topic discussion. Skoojal (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Before composing this post, I re-read the following: Sigmund Freud’s The Aetiology of Hysteria (reproduced as Appendix B in Jeffrey Masson’s The Assault on Truth), Freud’s False Memories: Psychoanalysis and the Recovered Memory Movement (the afterword to Richard Webster’s Why Freud Was Wrong), and the Postscript to the Pocket Edition of the 1998 edition of The Assault on Truth.

The story starts with Freud. Here’s a quote from The Aetiology of Hysteria: ‘As we know from Breuer, hysterical symptoms can be resolved if, starting from them, we are able to find the path back to the memory of a traumatic experience. If the memory which we have uncovered does not answer our expectations, it may be that we ought to pursue the same path a little further; perhaps behind the first traumatic scene there may be concealed the memory of a second, which satisfies our requirements better and whose reproduction has a greater therapeutic effect; so that the scene that was discovered only has the significance of a connecting link in the chain of associations. And perhaps this situation may repeat itself; inoperative scenes may be interpolated more than once, as necessary transitions in the process of reproduction, until we finally make out way from the hysterical symptom to the scene which is really operative traumatically and which is satisfactory in every respect, both therapeutically and analytically.’

Now from this, it’s clear that reproducing a scene and recovering a memory are effectively synonyms. The key words here are, ‘perhaps behind the first traumatic scene there may be concealed the memory of a second, which satisfies our requirements better and whose reproduction has a greater therapeutic effect.’ That makes it obvious that reproducing a scene and recovering a memory in practice amount to the same thing. It’s perhaps not strictly necessary to quote more of Freud here, but here all the same is more, immediately following on from the above passage:

‘Well, Gentlemen, this supposition is correct. If the first-discovered scene is unsatisfactory, we tell our patient that this experience explains nothing, but that behind it there must be hidden a more significant, earlier, experience; and we direct his attention by the same technique to the associative thread which connects the two memories - the one that has been discovered and the one that has still to be discovered. A continuation of the analysis then leads in every instance to the reproduction of new scenes of the character we expect. For example, let us take once again the case of hysterical vomiting which I selected before, and in which the analysis first led back to a fright from a railway accident - a scene which lacked suitability as a determinant. Further analysis showe that this accident had aroused in the patient the memory of another, earlier accident, which, it is true, he had not himself experienced but which had been the occasion of his having a ghastly and revolting sight of a dead body. It is as though the combined operation of the two scenes made the fulfilment of our postulates possible, the one experience supplying, through fright, the traumatic force and the other, from its content, the determining effect. The other case, in which the vomiting was tracked back to eating an apple which had partly gone bad, was amplified by the analysis somewhat in the following way. The bad apple reminded the patient of an earlier experience: while he was picking up windfalls in an orchard he had accidentally come upon a dead animal in a revolting state.’

The key words here are, ‘A continuation of the analysis then leads in every instance to the reproduction of new scenes of the character we expect’, which again makes it clear that reproducing a scene and recovering a memory are largely the same thing.

A third quote, from a passage that comes shortly after the one above: ‘The chain of associations always has more than two links; and the traumatic scenes do not form a simple row, like a string of pearls, but ramify and are interconnected like genealogical trees, so that in any new experience two or more earlier ones come into operation as memories.’ Immediately following that quote, Freud writes of ‘chains of memory’, thereby all but equating scenes with memories. Nowhere does Freud make a consistent distinction between them. Freud does write later that, ‘Is it not very possible either that the physician forces such scenes upon his docile patients, alleging that they are memories, or else that the patients tell the physician things which they have deliberately invented or have imagined and that he accepts those things as true’, but even this doesn’t spell out a clear difference. It’s apparent from the rest of what Freud wrote here that a scene is a memory to him.

Here is a fifth quote, which again shows the same thing: ‘According to our understanding of the neurosis, people of this kind ought not to be hysterical at all, or at any rate, not hysterical as a result of the scenes which they consciously remember. With our patients, those memories are never conscious; but we cure them of their hysteria by transforming their unconscious memories of the infantile scenes into conscious ones.’ Here Freud does effectively say that scenes are memories, even though he doesn’t use those exact words. Part of Esterson’s addition to the article was, ‘Webster does not argue that Freud forced memories of abuse on the patients in question: rather he writes that, with the aid of the coercive clinical procedure he was using at that time, Freud endeavoured to induce his patients to “reproduce” scenes of early childhood sexual abuse which “he himself had reconstructed from their symptoms or their associations.”

Yet there is not really any such distinction in Freud, and thus, it is not reasonable to accuse Masson of misrepresenting Webster on this point. Parts of what Webster wrote (eg, ‘His task was to persuade patients to reproduce the pathogenic memories which, according to his theories, were lodged in a submerged part of their minds. Freud’s duty, then, was not to treat the patient. It was to cure the disease. The way to do this was to persuade the patient to ‘remember’ scenes of childhood sexual abuse’), could easily be taken to support Masson’s point. Webster does write that ‘…he [Freud] went out of his way to persuade, encourage, cajole and sometimes bully his female patients to reproduce scenes of child sexual abuse which he himself had reconstructed from their symptoms or their associations, but given what Freud wrote (effectively equating a scene and a memory) that doesn’t contradict Masson (‘Webster claims that Freud used his “pressure technique” to elicit memories of childhood sexual abuse…’).

Other parts of Esterson’s addition are problematic for other reasons. For instance, they included, ‘An examination of the section in Webster’s Why Freud Was Wrong in which he discusses Masson’s The Assault on Truth indicates that his comments refer specifically to Freud’s claims in his 1896 papers, namely, that for every one of eighteen current patients he had uncovered unconscious memories of infantile sexual abuse occurring mostly below the age of four.’ The comments in question appear to be, ‘There is no evidence that any of the patients who came to Freud without memories of sexual abuse had ever suffered from such abuse.’ Esterson’s claim about what those comments refer to is conjecture. There is no explicit statement in Webster regarding what they refer to (no “my comments refer to” statements of any kind are anywhere to be found in his afterword).

Another part of Esterson’s addition was, ‘Webster [sic] words indicate that, while he writes that there is no evidence of sexual abuse in the case of the patients reported in the 1896 papers, he does not say either as a generality, or unequivocally, that no abuse had occurred for Freud’s early patients.’ Esterson is perhaps correct that Webster does not say ‘either as a generality, or unequivocally, that no abuse had occurred for Freud’s early patients’ (notwithstanding the fact that one of Webster’s comments, eg, ‘…Freud himself had, under the influence of his early theories, frequently tried to persuade women who had not been abused to believe that they had’, might be taken to imply that), but his comments in italics are his own conjecture.

Another problematic addition was, ‘In relation to Masson’s quoting in his 1998 Postscript that Freud stated he had been able to obtain an objective confirmation in two instances, this claim has been criticised on the grounds that no data are provided by Freud to justify what are described as contentions the reader must taken on faith.’ This addition was irrelevant. It might perhaps be appropriate to include this in the article on Freud; it is definitely not appropriate to include it in the article on Masson, because it has nothing to do with Masson’s argument about why Webster’s comments about him are misleading. In order for Masson to be right about this, there would only have to be evidence of some description that Freud’s patients had been abused, not necessarily good evidence. The quality of the evidence is a matter for a different discussion.

Response to Skoojal: Given the length of Skoojal's comments, and their nature, it will be impossible for me to make a half-way adequate response in a short space, so apologies for the length of this comment.

On Skoojal's first page-and-a-half quoting from the opening pages of "The Aetiology of Hysteria": It is first necessary to appreciate the situation Freud was faced with in the "Aetiology" paper (you'll see why in a moment – see the "second point" below). Prior to 1896 he had never claimed to have uncovered repressed memories of sexual abuse in infancy in any patient. Following his first reporting to his friend Fliess in October 1895 his new theory that such unconscious memories were the root cause of hysteria and obsessional neurosis, he had set about trying to confirm his theory. Within four months he had written a paper in which he claimed to have uncovered such unconscious memories (mostly from below the age of four) with every one of his current patients. In the preliminary comments in the more substantial April 1896 "Aetiology" paper he had to find a way to try to persuade his colleagues of the highly unlikely claim that he had now done so for every one of 18 patients. The words quoted by Skoojal illustrate how he set about this. (Also in those preliminary comments: Freud likened his analytic technique to that of a forensic scientist who "can arrive at the cause of an injury, even if he doesn't have any information from the injured person".)

(Incidentally, in relation to Skoojal's third paragraph, which quotes Freud describing clinical examples of his approach: In the following paragraph Freud tells his readers that he shall not be returning to these examples as they "are inventions of mine".)

Note two things here: First, Skoojal presents these preliminary paragraphs as demonstrating that for Freud "reproductions" all but equate to "memories", as if this were unproblematic. But it is actually its highly problematic nature that is at the very heart of what is wrong with Freud's claims, not least because it is impossible from Freud's paper to know just what the alleged "reproductions" of infantile "sexual scenes" consisted of. Since Freud (as he himself acknowledged in two of the 1896 papers, and in the Introduction to the 1905 "Dora" paper) never provided the clinical material on which his astounding claims were based, everything has to be taken on trust. But (quite apart from the principle of not taking a researcher's claims on trust) can we really trust the claims of someone who tells his colleagues publicly in a February 1898 paper that he has had "a great number" of therapeutic successes using his new analytic technique when in the very same month he was writing privately to his friend Wilhelm Fliess, "The cases of hysteria are proceeding very poorly. I shall not finish a single one this year either."

From this same 1898 paper we get an insight into how Freud conducted his therapy: Having made the appropriate diagnosis, "we may then boldly demand confirmation of our suspicions from the patient. We must not be led astray by initial denials. If we keep firmly to what we have inferred, we shall in the end conquer every resistance by emphasizing the unshakeable nature of our convictions." Again, in the "Aetiology" paper Freud writes about the "strongest compulsion" of the treatment. And again, from a January 1897 letter to Fliess describing how symptoms of eczema around the mouth and a facial tic led him to infer the patient had an unconscious memory of her father forcing her to suck his penis: "When I thrust the explanation at her, she was at first won over." In response to her later backtracking, he wrote: "She is now in the throes of the most vehement resistance… I have threatened to send her away…" (It is worth noting here that Skoojal cites Masson saying in response to Webster's contentions of coercive methods that there is not enough evidence to get a good idea of how Freud conducted his therapy!)

The second point is that one needs to appreciate that those opening paragraphs of "Aetiology" (cited by Skoojal as so significant), are a good example of Freud's famed gift for persuasive rhetoric. (He certainly needed it here if was going to convince his colleagues that he had suddenly uncovered unconscious memories of infantile abuse with all his 18 patients.) On this Eissler (2001) comments: "The three seduction theory papers are executed with such brilliance, conviction, and persuasiveness that repeated, meticulous readings are needed to discover the contradictions they contain and the shakiness of their foundation." A. Salyard (1994) observes that "the material Freud presented contained errors and inconsistencies, and was sometimes ambiguous, confusing, and lacking in clarity." Again, D. L. Smith (1991) observes of Freud's arguments: "Once again no clinical data is provided for the reader's scrutiny. Freud argues from a personal sense of conviction rooted in the intellectual satisfaction provided by the seduction theory."

Note that in the "Aetiology" paper Freud tells us that even after the clinical procedure he has put them through the patients "have no feeling of remembering" the alleged infantile "scenes", and assure Freud "emphatically of their unbelief". So much for the traditional story of how Freud's patients in this period "reported" having been sexually abused in early childhood.

Skoojal (paras 7 and 8) says that there isn't really a distinction in Freud between what he calls "reproductions" (though we have no real idea what this entails, since he never published the material of his analyses) and memories. But it's not a question of what was or was not the case with Freud (i.e., what Freud was able to convince himself about, something he was always able to do), but whether there is any evidence with the 1896 seduction theory patients that they were brought to recall memories of having been sexually abused in infancy. More generally, it is not a question of what a researcher has convinced himself to believe in order to confirm his own theory, but whether there is any real evidence that his claims are valid.

Skoojal (para 8) responds to a quote from Webster (end of para 7) with an argument that implicitly omits the implication of Webster's writing that Freud endeavoured to induce his seduction theory patients to reproduce infantile "sexual scenes", and also skates over the problem that we have no real idea of what was meant by an alleged "reproduction" and have to take Freud's word (if we're so inclined) that it was equivalent to a memory – even though the patients deny recalling the supposed event and express their unbelief "emphatically"!

Contrary to what Skoojal seems to be suggesting, that Webster doesn't accept that the 1896 patients had "memories" even in Freud's idiosyncratic sense is evident: "Given the highly specific nature of the infantile scenes which Freud had constructed, and which he was now attempting to force upon his patients, it is perhaps not surprising that he repeatedly failed in this attempt." And again: "The memories of scenes of childhood seduction were not real memories at all. They were, as a matter of theoretical necessity, constructed, suggested, or forced on patients by Freud himself." (Webster, 1995, pp. 209-210.) Similar conclusions have been drawn by numerous Freud's scholars and other academics from a close reading of the 1896 papers. For example, Schimek (1987) writes that "the original [infantile] traumas were not directly reported by the patients but were reconstructed by Freud on the basis of his interpretation of more or less disguised and partial manifestations and "reproductions". Again, Toews (1991) writes that "The seduction scenes were laboriously constructed from indirect and fragmentary evidence and usually rejected by the patients themselves. In 1896 Freud considered the patients' resistance to the story an important confirmation of its truth."

Skoojal writes (para 9) that there is no evidence that Webster's comments I cited refer specifically to the patients in the limited period when Freud held the seduction theory. But in the "Seduction Theory" chapter of his book Webster makes absolutely clear that it is in regard to these specific patients that his comments are directed (pp. 200-210). He starts discussing the events in question from October 1895 (when Freud told Fliess of his new theory), goes on to deal with the 1896 "Aetiology" paper, and writes that this state of affairs (Freud's claiming infantile seductions) lasted for "almost two years". After that Freud abandoned the seduction theory and Webster's discussion of these specific clinical claims ends.

In Skoojal's penultimate paragraph he writes about a particular paragraph I had posted that my comments in italics are my own conjecture. In fact there are two phrases in italics. I'll assume that Skoojal is referring to the first of these, where I said that when Webster wrote there was no evidence of sexual abuse he was referring specifically to the 1896 claims. What I wrote in the paragraph immediately above applies equally to this. A reading of Webster's chapter "The Seduction Theory" (as against the brief two-page allusion to the episode in the Afterword) suffices to demonstrate that his comments about there not being evidence of sexual abuse was in regard to the patients in the limited period of "almost two years" when Freud held to the seduction theory.

In Skoojal's final paragraph he states that one short paragraph I had posted was inappropriate "because it has nothing to do with Masson's argument about why Webster's comments about him were misleading".

The sentences of Skoojal's in question on the Jeffrey Masson page paraphrase Masson rebutting Webster's contention that there is no evidence that any of the patients who came to Freud without memories of sexual abuse had ever suffered from such abuse. Skoojal writes that Masson responded to this by noting that Freud thought he had "objective" proof to the contrary in two instances. The implication is that Masson has directed attention to some evidence suggesting that Webster's contention is erroneous. But even before Masson had cited the two cases in question in his 1998 Postscript, two Freud scholars had examined the relevant claims and shown that Freud provided no data that gave support for them, in other words Freud assertion of "objective proof" had to be taken on trust. (In one of the cases it turned out that the "evidence" wasn't even in relation to infantile sexual abuse, which is what Freud was purportedly claiming to have validated!) Skoojal says my mentioning this is inappropriate because it has nothing to do with Masson's argument about why Webster's comments about his account were misleading. On the contrary, Masson is clearly rebutting a contention of Webster's that is in opposition to Masson's account of events, and he takes the trouble to quote Freud's actual words as if they should be taken seriously (1998, pp. 321-322). He then goes on to say that "Webster is not only wrong in his facts..." as if an evidence-free assertion of Freud's sufficed to indicate that Webster was in error on this point.

Esterson (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that both of the positions above represent a considerable amount of OR, and I'm not going to try to decide which one is valid. The task of the article is to describe Masson's view, and then briefly indicate the degree of support or opposition to it. It is not to discuss Freud or Webster--there are other article for the purpose. In that light, the discussion of the appendix to a book of his criticizing Webster should probably be cut a considerable amount, as the fundamental issues involved cannot be summarized adequately or appropriately in this article. It is certainly not our job to decide whether his criticism of Webster were justified, just that they were made, and to indicate there is a dispute over them. DGG (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG: I appreciate your comment. In my defence, elsewhere Skoojal had written that he had posted a comment on this discussion page as part of his explanation why he had deleted my paragraphs on the Jeffrey Masson page and didn't think they should be reverted. I thought I had little choice but to respond to it in kind. Apologies if it was inappropriate. Esterson (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG: Re the section on the Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson page "1998 Edition of The Assault on Truth you wrote:

"...the discussion of the appendix to a book of his criticizing Webster should probably be cut a considerable amount, as the fundamental issues involved cannot be summarized adequately or appropriately in this article."

I can't see an appropriate way reducing this section, which would in my view require amending the paragraphs posted by Skoojal, with a correspondingly different response providing Webster's views on topics raised by Masson in relation to what Webster wrote in Why Freud Was Wrong. The thesis of the first edition of The Assault on Truth is itself discussed in the article in only a couple of sentences, so I don't see there needs to be a section on a short Postscript to a later edition. I therefore propose that the whole section be deleted, if other editors are agreed. Esterson (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to at least mention the appendix.

1. Is there a possibility of write a paragraph of what the controvsey was about, rather than of what he said?
2. Is there any suitably objective published discussion of the appendix from others than M or W. ? (or contrasting pairs of such discussions)? in situations like this it's often better to refer to such, rather than the original. DGG (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG: You wrote: "It is probably a good idea to at least mention the appendix."

I possess five new Prefaces or Afterwords to different editions of The Assault on Truth, all of which contain responses to critics. Why should the 1998 Postscript be selected out for special treatment?

By 1998, fourteen years after the publication of Assault, numerous scholarly critics of the book had already had their say, and would scarcely have noticed (probably not even been aware of) the new editions. (Despite my strong interest in the subject stretching back to the year before Masson's book was published – there's a chapter on the seduction theory in my book on Freud published in 1993 – I only became aware of new Afterwords because I was deeply engaged in writing journal articles on the subject, with special reference to Masson.) So you won't find journal articles on any of the Postscript/Afterwords of the several later editions of Assault.

There is a critique of the 1998 Postscript that I wrote at the time here.[30] But it is on the "Freud's Seduction Theory" website of Human Nature Review [31] which I'm sure doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source.

I really don't know where that leaves us... Esterson (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, but I'd like to approach it slowly. First step is to upgrade the bibliography to standard form. I think the pdf bibliography lined to in the article is dead [32]. Us WorldCat+LC. Divide into Books, and other publications. Include all the books, possibly separate the general religious ones and the animal books into separate sections, and only key other publications (as at present). For the books, and in all cases date and pubisher and ISBN. In this case use a direct chronological arrangement. Include reviews of his books as a double indent under the book, not a separate section. Now, if there are multiple editions, add them to the main ones, eg. 1988 XXX. (2nd ed, 1989, This will give a framework for the discussion. LC has eds of the book in qy for 1984, 85 (2 of them), 92, & 2003. It does not have one for 1998. They are not all called distinct eds. LC separates a new ed if the pagination changes, which is in fact intended to pick up new prefaces and appendixes. 84 is xxiii, 308; 85a is xxxi, 316 p; 85b is same, but the penguin ed. ; 92 "First harper " is xxxv, 316; 03 is xxi, 361 p. Do you have additional eds? Sometimes LC will not have a parallel UK ed. What are the differences? (anyway, this is the sort of thing a bibliographer thinks of to clarify a situation like this). DGG (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG: You wrote:

"First step is to upgrade the bibliography to standard form. I think the pdf bibliography lined to in the article is dead [9]. Us WorldCat+LC. Divide into Books, and other publications. Include all the books, possibly separate the general religious ones and the animal books into separate sections, and only key other publications (as at present). For the books, and in all cases date and pubisher and ISBN. In this case use a direct chronological arrangement"

That would be very time-consuming, and I have other things to do! That seems to me the kind of job for someone who has followed Masson's multifarious writing career and has a good knowledge of his output, something I certainly don't have.

You wrote:

"Now, if there are multiple editions, add them to the main ones, eg. 1988 XXX. (2nd ed, 1989, This will give a framework for the discussion. LC has eds of the book in qy for 1984, 85 (2 of them), 92, & 2003."

I don't know how you obtained the LC records!

You wrote:

"Do you have additional eds? Sometimes LC will not have a parallel UK ed. What are the differences?"

Concerning The Assault on Truth: As far as I know, there was only one British edition, Penguin 1985 (which has its own new Preface), which is the one I possess. I don't possess any other edition. I have either photocopies of new Prefaces or Afterwords I obtained from libraries some time ago, or obtained directly from Masson himself with no publication details. (And I only have publication details for one of the photocopies.)

The book itself, The Assault on Truth remained unchanged through all these editions with unchanged pagination, so I'm not convinced that it is necessary to post all the editions anyway. I myself don't feel inclined to expend the time to find out the respective publication details for all these editions. Esterson (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think there is a good case to be made for removing the "1998 edition of The Assault on Truth" section altogether.

(i) It is only one new Preface/Afterword/Postscript among at least five.

(ii) The quoted contentions Masson makes about Webster's views are, putting it euphemistically, controversial. Less euphemistically, in that 1998 Postscript Masson does not give an accurate report of Webster's views as expressed in the Seduction Theory chapter of Why Freud Was Wrong (see paragraphs on the Jeffrey Masson page following the original posting in that section, and here). This has led to the contents of this section of the Jeffrey Masson page being more appropriate (if anywhere) for the Freud's Seduction Theory page, not here. Esterson (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First, specifics. One finds what's in LC by going to www.loc.gov, selecting the catalog, & searching. Anyway, I found the '98, [33] it is a paperback, Description: xxi, 343 p. : ill. ; 21 cm.. so t h ed. is real. I'm not going to do the bibliography either, I do not see the immediate point. The question then is whether it is worth including. First did anyone specifcally comment upon it? If so, then yes. Second, does it represent a significant change of Masson's views from earlier eds. ? If so, then yes. DGG (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG: You asked two questions. As the second is, in my opinion, the crucial one, I shall answer that first.

Does the 1998 edition represent a significant change of Masson's views from earlier editions? Definitely not. The book itself remained unchanged through all the editions, and in the 1998 Postscript Masson reiterated his case. So why was the 1998 edition selected for a new section? It might not be a coincidence that in this Postscript Masson singles out Richard Webster for criticism, and the editor who posted the new section had elsewhere engaged in prolonged exchanges in which he also criticized Webster. (I can supply the URL if you wish.)

The other question: Did anyone specifically comment on the paragraphs posted on the 1998 Postscript? Yes, but only to point out that the views that Masson ascribed to Webster (as correctly paraphrased in the paragraphs in question) gave a misleading impression of what Webster actually wrote in Why Freud Was Wrong. Esterson (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, next--what had Masson written about Webster prior to 1998?, and, refs to those published criticisms--I realise they're probably there somewhere above. DGG (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG: You asked: "What had Masson written about Webster prior to 1998?"

Nothing, since Webster's book was not published until 1995. But there is nothing in Webster's discussion of the seduction theory episode with which Masson takes issue that had not been published in several books or articles before 1995. (In his chapter on the seduction theory Webster cited four such relevant authors, and did not suggest that his chapter on the seduction theory contained original material. He cited two additional relevant publications in his Appendix on recovered memories of sexual abuse.) Esterson (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Webster supplement: unnecessary section

OK, at this point I accept that the section might not be appropriate or necessary, but I think it would be well to wait for comments before removing it.. DGG (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's anyone interested! Esterson (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Austerlitz has continued with his monologues in this talk page. Anyway: now two more editors discuss at length ORish matters. My question: where's the substance in this article which I used to edit two years ago? Masson is well-known in the psychology circles because of his critique of psychoanalysis. Besides his books on Freud, an encyclopedic article must mention important books by him like Against therapy and Final analysis. The article definitively needs expansion beyond the "cute animals" stuff. —Cesar Tort 04:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Masson has just e-mailed me. I told him that the photo he sent me had been deleted. He just wrote:

“

It sounds very complicated to get permission. I have sent them an email though, saying you have my permission to use. Let’s see what they say. Jeff [full address, e-mail & website link]

”

Any ideas how to help him in Wikimedia with his photo?

—Cesar Tort 05:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, Masson has tried to contact the Wikimedia Commons admins. But they don't seem to listen. In a recent forward email —:

“

Jeffrey Masson [email] wrote: I was informed that a photo I sent somebody to put up on my entry on wikepedia, was removed. He has my permission to use my photo. Best, Jeff Masson Jeffrey Masson

”

I will take a long wikibreak next month. If someone among you wants to help Masson, please let me know and I'd give him/her Masson's email so that this Wikimedia problem may be solved.

—Cesar Tort 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My advice would be look into the

simple rules)

18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow these instructions (cf. this on en.wiki). If you don't see an OTRS signoff within a reasonable amount of time, you could then try approaching one of the OTRS volunteers directly. He/She should at least be able to tell you what the problem (if any) is. If you are not uploading directly to

) 16:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mother's Guru

Later on she chose another Guru of her own, who was British jewish Mystic John Levy, John Levy: friend and contrary guru. Should he be mentioned, too? Masson mentioned him at the end of his book "My father's Guru".

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.65 (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.65 (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• [34] A conversation about the lives of animals with Susan McCarthy and Jeffrey Moussaieff Mason on Jun 30, 1995, Duration 60 min

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.95 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As it seems to me, one has to Login or Register before you can see/hear the conversation. I've seen/heard only small part of it with Jeffrey Masson.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.197.150 (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The link doesn't work anymore, that's why I've transferred it from the article's page to the discussion page.

• Bibliography of Masson's writings.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The content of this link has gone, so I've transferred it to the discussion page. *http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/01/31/tljeff31.html "The Lothario who fell for fatherhood."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• [35]

Since there is no direct link to his review, I put it here. It is worth reading.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.218.41 (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ciwf.org.uk/images/2009/n/news_jeffrey_masson.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/compassion_news/jeffrey_masson.aspx&h=267&w=200&sz=11&tbnid=57lxIX9E4wYL2M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=85&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJeffrey%2BMasson&hl=de&usg=__T9RFghGCPaWWO3rFqeOf6j-P81I=&ei=6ygiS77DE4rK_ga86Ny6Cg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=10&ct=image&ved=0CC0Q9QEwCQ

COMPASSION in world farming.

-- 88.75.202.142 (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Dorrit Moussaieff related to Jeffrey?--194.144.23.124 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Masson says: May. 4, 2010 at 2:05 pm, responding to the following article of Daphne Merkin at TABLET [36]

"Very interesting article! You are definitely the fox in Isaiah Berlin’s terms, Daphne, and always fascinating to read. One small correction: I did not “suspect” she was Jewish; she told me she was Jewish. She talked about it in great detail with my then wife, Therese Claire Masson, who was also Jewish, and also from Warsaw (she was a child in the Warsaw Ghetto). Although they spoke in Polish most of the time, I sometimes joined the conversation, as I have always been fascinated (obsessed others would say) with the Holocaust. When Alice Miller asked me to do an interview with her for a European publication I gladly agreed, and all went well until I asked about her life in Warsaw and how this may have had an impact on her views. After all, I claimed then, and still do, that any analyst who ignores the trauma that is the Holocaust, is shirking his or her duty. Surely trauma lies at the very heart of Freud’s psychoanalysis. She blew up, and began to cry. How could I join the long list of people who had abused her? I had no idea what she meant, and she would not explain, but from that moment our friendship suffered and never recovered. I still feel puzzled, because I know she agreed with me about the importance of trauma, and in fact had come to Berkeley to spend a week with me talking about it before I wrote my book, The Assault on Truth."

Can somebody please insert this technically correct?

--88.72.28.10 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added Masson's words on Alice Miller to References, but I don't know how and where to place Merkin's article.

--88.72.22.50 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Masson's first wife Therese Claire Masson.

--88.75.79.48 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Their daughter Simone, [37].

--88.75.79.48 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

--88.72.4.143 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"The topic of "identification with the aggressor" came up in the context of children in concentration camps who tried to find little bits of clothing of their Nazi torturers and wear them. Anna Maenchen used this interesting information to buttress the idea of Anna Freud that these children had identified with the Nazis. "Well, yes, but that is a rather formal way of putting it", objected Terri. "After all, they had nothing. They were doomed to die, and knew it. It is not surprising that they would cling to something that they sadly hoped could protect them." "I agree with Terri," I added. "That's not really an identification. That is too strong a word. They are simply trying to survive. Somehow, it is a little bit alarming to use this kind of information for psychoanalytic purposes." "Yes, it is almost like it is being used against them," concluded Terri." Final Analysis by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, page 141.

--88.72.4.143 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

some more information http://www.magnes.org/wjhc/finding-m.htm

--88.75.215.124 (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)