User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Cesar Tort is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.


Contents

[edit] R.D. Laing

I live in England. Did you know that in the UK, Laing's reputation was destroyed by an ad hominem campaign by the psychiatry profession? They had plenty of ammunition. (1) Alcoholism. He once appeared in a TV interview while intoxicated. It looked bad. (2) His first marriage ended in divorce. His ex-wife and daughter appeared in a TV documentary where they both said he made their lives miserable. Unlike Soteria, Laing's experimental community for schizophrenics wasn't a big success. I don't like to see his name because I don't believe it makes a favourable impression (except perhaps to his fans). I don't like him because he caused his daughter much unhappiness. -- Bookish 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remove R.D. Laing's name from the See also section in psychohistory. I have never seen him described as a psychohistorian. -- Bookish 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Laing from the psychohistory article (and also the twin studies minor change as suggested).
I was a fan of Laing in my twenties. What you mention of his biography is new to me. When I lived in Manchester I remember having seen in a bookstore a biography about Laing by one of his relatives, but I didn’t buy it.
It doesn’t surprise me that Laing was an abuser. I am a son of Alice Miller, not of the 1960s and 70s writers of psychogenic models for schizophrenia or even psychohistorians. Lloyd is not an abuser like Laing was, of course. But he is crankiest with his “fetal origins of history”, “poisonous placentas” and more.
I was cranky too when in 1979 I fell in a cult called Eschatology. But I have had an “enlightened witness” since 1998 and by now I know that only writing about your own parental tragedy and sharing it with an empathetic ear heals. Neither Laing nor Lloyd wrote much about their tormented souls.
I still think Laing’s The Divided Self is brilliant but, like Lloyd’s crank theories, flawed in a number of ways. If you take a look at Laing’s first chapter you will see that it’s impossible to do a “science of persons” if you don’t write about yourself (e.g., Miller’s personal confessions since she wrote Banished Knowledge or my 10-volume literary project about me and my family). In other words, Laing never had an enlightened witness and didn’t heal himself completely. Miller and I have and therefore belong to a different psychoclass. Laing and the antipsychiatrists failed miserably because they didn’t know what is obvious for us: the helping mode of parenting is the only way to salvation.
There are still so few overmen on planet Earth... —Cesar Tort 15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the link from Psychohistory. I saw the Laing documentary on TV, but you can read about Laing's daughter Fiona online (it's about halfway down the page). He fathered 10 children by different wives and girlfriends.
Alice Miller is also skeptical of deMause's fetal origins of history. I can supply a page reference if you want. In my opinion it is not necessarily wrong, but it is the weakest part of his theory. -- Bookish 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes: please supply that reference. —Cesar Tort 16:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to this article written by Daniel Burston, Bookish [1] 88.73.38.73 13:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
In the "Adolph Hitler's Childhood" chapter of For Your Own Good there is a paragraph which begins: "Lloyd deMause, who as a psychohistorian is particularly interested in motivation and in describing the group fantasies underlying it..."
In the British paperback edition (Virago Press) it's on page 171. By the way, I prefer not to write about personal matters on Wikipedia because User_talk pages can be found on Google (including yours and mine). -- Bookish 17:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, my life will certainly be publicly exposed after I publish. You can email me also to: cesartort@yahoo.com —Cesar Tort 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cesar on Psychiatry

Has somewhere here been in a discussion about this article of Cesar [2] (hello Cesar**) already? Austerlitz**** 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes: in the serious WP:RFAR process I was dragged to, an editor commented negatively on my article [3]. You can see my reply to that editor in the RFAR page. —Cesar Tort

Thank you. I don't want to read all of that stuff, it is too boring to me, sorry. Austerlitz ****

You don’t have to sign your name twice, do you? Nor you need two different signatures (“Austerlitz Peace Monument”). I hope you don’t mind that I have deleted your black signatures above and below; or that I’ve replaced you IP number for your chosen name. —Cesar Tort 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, you can see my angry letter published on 27 October 2005 in the Amazon Book reviews of Peter Breggin’s Toxic Psychiatry. —Cesar Tort 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally I have confused this book/author with another recommendation of yours, this one: [4], but I've noticed that this is another man, Louis Breger, and another title. By the way, when reading a criticism of Freud's person or theory garlanded by a quotation of Jung, arouses kind of rage in me. Usually the quoter wants to express Jung's 'superiority'. Austerlitz ****

You can use a shorter way when citing URLs. Just write [xyz] as I just edited your Amazon URL above (as you can see if you click “Edit This Page”). —Cesar Tort 10:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this. Can you please show me with another article? this one: [5]. How can I make the quotation shorter that it does not go out of field? Austerlitz (not important the colour)
Do you see now? I just added square brackets (see text in Edit Mode). —Cesar Tort 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't see and I remember that I had put those square brackets before. Austerlitz 88.72.3.80 09:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You have to look it by clicking in the EDIT at the right of the "Cesar and psychiatry" subtitle. You used regular brackets "(xyz)" not square ones "[xyz]". If you use the latter the URL will appear just as a number —much easier to read. BTW, I wouldn't reccomend you sign as you do, Austerlitz, since this is not your user page: it's an article. Better red or black if you don't want to log in. --Cesar Tort 10:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've tried this on the page about Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson with two articles written by Ralph Blumenthal, and it worked. Thanks, Cesar. Austerlitz 88.72.3.18 08:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have found and read your letter now. Breggin has become a Neanderthal? It's not a 'race', you mean? [6] Austerlitz ****

No: it doesn’t mean race. It means a man of an inferior psychoclass in Lloyd deMause’s sense (see what means “psychogenic mode” in the Psychohistory article). —Cesar Tort 10:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But: you called Burston to be a Neanderthal, because his article about Freud has not been 100% perfect, because there have been some stupid things in it, too. And you wrote that Breggin has changed to the worse with his writings over the years, at least in certain areas, but: you don't call him to be a Neanderthal. Why not?

I don't want to know Lloyd deMause theory, what's the use of just one more method of classification? This always means labeling people.

Do you think it's important to know it? Is it true?? Austerlitz**** 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd deMause never uses the word “Neanderthal”, nor does he call names. I use his theory even to call him a guy of an inferior psychoclass since he doesn’t want to know that psychiatrists and analysis label sane children to drug them into brain damage (he has lots of analyst friends).
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...
Again: why should people who have been abused in their childhoods not be able to feel empathy toward another victim?? What about perpetrators? You think they can feel empathy? Or does it depend on the individual, whether abused or not, if he or she feels empathy? Austerlitz****
I will respond in Talk:Psychiatry. —Cesar Tort 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain and mind, some buddhist point of view

http://www.dalailama.com/page.8.htm I don't know -maybe- there is space for that way of looking, too. Austerlitz**** [posted on 10 July 2006 21:08 (UTC)]

I don’t believe in the so-called Dalai Lama. To my eyes, like the Pope Ratzinger the Lama is just another charlatan with lots of followers plugged in The Matrix :) Cesar Tort 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Really, Cesar, I don't know what "believing in" the so-called Dalai Lama means to you. I thought you would just check some of his arguments, not to "believe in" him. I understand that you think theories or persons to be completely wrong or completey right, and this -according to my wellfunded impression- is almost never true.
It's natural, though, that we want to be loved and understood, that's a human need. It is sad when one is never understood and loved. But parents are not perfect neither. Austerlitz 88.72.0.94 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)*****
Believing in reincarnation, as the Lama does, is to be plugged in the Hindu/Buddhist matrix. No real adult has any guru whatsoever. Not even Miller is my guru (she has said things that I utterly disagree).
No parent is perfect. But some of them commit crimes. —Cesar Tort 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Plugged in the Matrix: what do you want to say by that? Austerlitz 88.72.3.80 09:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In the science-fiction film The Matrix billions of human beings were plugged into a computational matrix. Did you see the film? The first film of the trilogy was more metaphorical then the sequels. It meant something like Plato’s cave or the Maya dream-world for Hinduism. I use the metaphor to mean people sleeping in their false Weltanschauung.
I wonder if you understood those citations of mine in Talk Psychiatry? “Fiddling while Rome burns” means that it’s no good to just see rampant child abuse and do nothing. That the Sunnite Iraqis are killing Shiite civilians with bombs with the intention of killing civilians is not an opinion: it’s a fact. Actually it’s genocide: religious intolerance similar to the Catholic genocide of the Huguenots in 17th century’s Paris. I hate USA’s Republican right. Nonetheless, that these terrorists belong to an inferior psychoclass than the Americans can be seen here [7].
Also, you say you didn’t swallow my red pill but the fact that you have already read Miller, Masson and others makes me wonder if you are already in the process of “unplugging” yourself out of the false worldviews? (Neo swallowed a "red pill" to become unplugged in the film) —Cesar Tort 10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Salve, Cesar, you think you are unplugged from false worldviews?? [Austerlitz] 88.72.2.212 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (this is red and black; is it OK for you?)
It’s OK with me but you don’t need the brackets around your signature. I don’t mind the blue signature here in my subpage. But if you do it in other more public talk pages it could be very confusing for editors that ignore you are new to Wikipedia and that you are learning how to handle it.
I’ve been trying to unplug myself from diverse matrixes all of my life.
I was born in a very Catholic family and suffered a titanic struggle in my teens with the parental introjects until I “unplugged” myself from Christianity.
However, later in my life I fell into a new age cult (see Eschatology (cult). So I endured a terrible struggle during my twenties to unplug myself from that second false worldview.
But that’s not the end of the story! In my thirties I still fell victim of another false worldview, parapsychology. I even published my psychic stuff in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research for some years. But I had to endure another mental warfare once again to understand the fallacies of this field.
Finally I realized it was just another pseudoscience and that all of those matrixes had to do with the fact that I and my sisters were abused during childhood: the subject of my books (I can add the much lesser inner struggle I endured with psychoanalysis: another matrix I had to debunk internally).
This means, Austerlitz, that most of my life has been spent in inner struggling with false religions, cults and pseudosciences; or to use the language Miller used in her first book: struggles with the parental introjects.
By the way, since I was educated in a very leftist High School, later in my adult life I had to read a lot of literature debunking Soviet and Cuban communism to unplug myself out from still another matrix: Marxism, etc. —Cesar Tort 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Cesar. For the moment I only want to say that according to my experience there is some truth to be found everywhere, in Christianity, in Islam, in Buddhism, in Hinduism, in Psychoanalysis,etc .Most probably not in Psychiatry, I'm not sure yet. I think that most of the parents want their children to be happy, but very often they don't know what to do. They are ignorant, and often they are not courageous enough to believe that their children are OK when some authority tells them that there is something wrong with the kids. Some of the parents can't bear very active children because this stirs up their own unconscious nervosity and maybe aggression, and by making the child more 'quiet' they just try to help themselves. Of course, in case you know parents who give their children Ritalin, for example, parents who let them drug with the help of some psychiatrist, you have to tell them what you know about it. How can you make them listen to your knowledge? By giving them an example how they could solve the 'problem', by convincing them. Don't you think so? May I ask you how you got rid of those ugly parental introjects presenting themselves in different disguises? What made them so attractive? Has it been love? Austerlitz 88.72.3.71 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC) *****

Of course: our parents wanted our happiness. That’s why, besides your readings of Miller and Masson, you still have to read Lloyd deMause to understand what the oxymoron cruel compassion means in childrearing practices.
I finally got rid from introjects when I realized that they were what psychologists call an overcompensation defense mechanism for extreme humiliation at home. Any religion, cult or totalitarian political Utopia promises us what we missed at home: genuine parental love. Gurus, religious or political leaders are transference figures of our parents. This happened in Germany’s 1930s, as you can see in the external links of an article I edited, Daniel Goldhagen, about Hitler’s willing executioners.
The point is that when you realize that you are transferring, you no longer believe in fatherly figures: whether Hitler, Dalai Lama or Marx. You become an adult who listens only to your own reason: the dream of the Enlightenment philosophers.
I don't know what you mean: what about your own feelings? you just want to exclude them completely? Austerlitz 88.72.0.94 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC) *****
Quite the contrary: the more I validate my feelings, the more skeptical I become of pop psychology, religious and New Age approaches. —Cesar Tort 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Cesar: do you think it possible that your feelings are wrong? somehow? I mean, and sometimes? and perhaps? Austerlitz 88.72.1.156 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) *****
(By the way, if you log in, even if you use several computers you will have the privilege to have a “my watchlist” button where you can instantaneously see other editors’ recent changes of your favorite articles.) —Cesar Tort 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popper

I don't like Karl Popper since I have read an interview he has given before his death where he has claimed that it can be right to wage a war for getting peace. That seems so wrong to me that I hardly can believe any other saying of Popper had valid points of real importance. Austerlitz 88.72.1.42 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) My emotions of dislike because of that opinion of Popper have prevented me from plugging any deeper into his philosophy. The fact that you seem to like him has not prevented me from acknowledging the truth of your article about psychiatry being a Pseudo-science, though. Austerlitz 88.72.3.18 08:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe in the Matrix of Science, Cesar? Austerlitz 88.72.1.122 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation of your article about psychiatry: "But psychiatry has never been a science. As a Popperian philosopher of science would easily notice..." You don't say that you are a Popperian philosopher, do you? Austerlitz 88.72.2.18 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't the United Kingdom and the United States declared war to Hitler you may be living now under a thousand-year Reich. I don’t like Thomas Aquinas except one of his statements: War is morally OK only if it prevents a worse evil.
Science is no Matrix at all: it’s the study of the empirical world (I am thinking of hard sciences only: physics, chemistry, biology, geology and astronomy). On the other hand, many political, religious or New Age beliefs are delusional.
I think and feel that Science is a Matrix, at least it is used like a Matrix, perhaps it does not have to be. Usually Scientists think to be modern and better than all the other Gurus. I don't like Scientists more than others, I think if I had to chose between a scientist and an oldfashioned Guru I'd prefer the Guru. Of course there may be Gurus being Scientists at the same time. Austerlitz 88.72.0.163 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have indented your above post. It would greatly help if you indent the entries you post in-between a reply of mine. Otherwise it appears that a paragraph of yours is mine! On the other hand, I don’t like gurus. If I had to choose between a guru and a scientist I’d prefer the scientist :) —Cesar Tort 17:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I like two books by Popper: The Open Society and its Enemies and The Logic of Scientific Discovery. But I cannot be called a Popperian since he was blind to important areas under discussion. Popper never exposed psychiatry or child abuse for example. —Cesar Tort 01:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No guru is an overman

an overman here or on some other planet http://www.yogananda-srf.org/special_ancmnts/150annv_sy/150anv_g.html just have a look, Cesar. Austerlitz 88.72.2.9 18:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have relocated your above post from my discussion with Bookish above. I think that every guru and every single guru follower is delusional. Have you read Masson’s My Father’s Guru? —Cesar Tort 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Masson writes that Paul Brunton has been better than Paramahansa Yogananda, that Brunton has not been a "sprichwörtlicher" false prophet. I don't know what might be the reason behind that belief, or behind this experience. Austerlitz 88.72.1.18 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Austerlitz. These are the final words in Final Analysis: “There are no experts in loving, no scholars of living, no doctors of human emotions and no gurus of the soul. But we need not to be alone; friendship is a precious gift, and all that we need do to see is remove the blinders”. —Cesar Tort 07:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
THE MOTHER OF THE GURU. In the autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda there is a story of Yogananda visiting the mother of Sri Yukteswar, together with Sri Yukteswar, and he describes with amusement how this mother treated her Guru son like an ordinary 'child'. Austerlitz 88.72.3.68 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And yes, friendship is a precious gift.
Besides any Gurus it seems to be a common way of thinking and feeling that towards ones parents you always remain their child. Austerlitz 88.72.3.68 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And then gurus treat their followers like children. Alice Miller has written about these sort of introjects, so common in guru followers, in chapter five of Wege des Lebens Sieben Geschichten. —Cesar Tort 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've read that book of Alice Miller, but I have not bought it neither. It has nothing to do with the quality of the book, which is -like usual- high. But my bookshelves have been very full and my purse has been quite empty, and I've thought that I never by an other book again. If this is the book where Alice Miller has written about the Guru danger I'll tell you what I remember: According to my memory she wrote that people who have been mistreated by their parents or otherwise (sexually) abused are looking for Gurus to make this experience undone. But you cannot make it undone, you are going to repeat it instead. This is not neccessarily so, perhaps you repeat it to bring it to a better ending. Austerlitz ****
If there is a Guru treating you like a loving father or mother or as a friend, there is nothing bad about it, I think. Austerlitz 88.72.3.68 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
But it’s the other way around: followers see them as fatherly figures. —Cesar Tort 14:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you read Masson’s My Father’s Guru? Austerlitz 88.72.2.212 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No I haven’t; only book reviews. However, Masson talks a lot against gurus in Final Analysis. Since in my twenties I had my own charlatan gurus (see what happened to them in Eschatology (cult), like Masson presently I’m totally vaccinated against each and every one so-called spiritual guides. —Cesar Tort 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no Guru in Final analysis. (except Masson himself). A Guru is a truthseeker. one who does not lie. charlatan guru, charlatan scientist, what's the difference between one charlatan and another? Austerlitz 88.72.0.84 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Masson had Freud (and to a lesser extent his abusive analyst) as his personal guru and savior before he unplugged himself from psychoanalysis. I believe that all gurus lie to themselves, without exception (and therefore lie to their naive and stupid followers). No person who has felt the pain of his/her childhood to its ultimate depths can transfer to authority figures. No single one. I have lived in California and have observed the outrageous lies in countless of cults there. There are charlatan scientists, of course; but science is not charlatanism per se. On the other hand, religionists and mystics are all deluded: even Gotama (Buddha), Yeshu (Jesus) and Giovanni di Bernardone (St. Francis of Assisi). This will be the subject matter of my tenth, and last, book. —Cesar Tort 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
For the moment I can only recommend you Paul Kurtz’s The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Kurtz himself signed a copy of it for me here in Mexico City back in 1989. —Cesar Tort 19:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Miller’s blunder

To begin with the easiest subject; what has Miller said that you utterly disagree? (and, does she belong to sort of Matrix, too, according to your perception and jugdement?) Austerlitz 88.72.1.122 18:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have relocated your above post to avoid confussion. Miller wrote some pretty stupid stuff at the end of her book Eve’s Awakening:

"Long before his birth Jesus received the greatest reverence, love, and protection from his parents, and it was in this initial all-important experience that his rich emotional life, his thinking, and his ethics were rooted. His earthly parents saw themselves as his servants, and it would never have occurred to them to lay a finger on him."

And also:

"Jesus grew into a strong, aware, empathic, and wise person able to experience and sustain strong emotions without being engulfed by them. He could see through insincerity and mendacity and he had the courage to expose them for what they were."

In fact, Jesus was swaddled according to the gospel of Luke: a repulsive and abominable practice! Miller wrote the above statements ignoring the fact that the historical Jesus (not the mythical Christ of dogma) hated his own mother and brothers, who wanted a word with him, and instead addresses a crowd of his followers, as Daniel Mackler has noted in his essay on Miller. I will quote again from Daniel's article:

"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said: Here are my mother and my brothers!" (Matthew 12:48-49)

Or this, from Luke 14:26:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters [...] he cannot be my disciple."

Or Matthew 10:34:

"Think not that I have come to bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I bring but a sword. I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law; a person’s enemies will be the members of his own household."

I told Daniel that the best psychological study about the historical Jesus written by a follower of Miller is Donald Capps’ The Child's Song: The Religious Abuse of Children: a stupendous reading. —Cesar Tort 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Donald Capps: [8]. That's the book of Capps about Jesus Alice Miller has recommended recently.
Where? —Cesar Tort 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Here: [9] Austerlitz 88.72.2.109 09:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the one you talked about [10]
Have you read both of them? Austerlitz 88.72.2.197
Only the latter. —Cesar Tort 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well Cesar, the words of Jesus to be found in the different bibles are quite often contradictory, I know this.
I don't want to refer to Alice Miller's writings (your quotations) about Jesus now, instead I want to remember that Alice Miller in one of her other books described Michail Gorbatschow as the outcome of sort of perfect love and therefore sort of perfect being. But she has been wrong, at least in her political hopes connected with Gorbatschow.
And look, what I have found just now at Wikipedia: In 1986, Alice Miller was awarded the Janusz Korczak Literary Award by the Anti-Defamation League. Sometimes I don't know what is the one reality behind different things. You remember that it has been the Anti-Defamation League waging an unfair battle against Hannah Arendt because of her book Eichmann in Jerusalem? -Austerlitz 88.72.3.22 09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC) *****
I remember that passage. She didn’t describe Gorbachev’s childhood as a perfect one, only much better than Stalin’s. —Cesar Tort 14:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Which book? I would like to look it up. because I am sure that she has praised his personality in a very extraordinary way. Austerlitz 88.72.2.212 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Chapter six of precisely Evas Erwachen. —Cesar Tort 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read it, but I have not bought it. And I think it must have been a book I have bought, too. Austerlitz 88.72.0.84 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it has been The truth will set you free. Just have a look at the review written by John A. Speyrer [11], he writes about Gorbachev in the eyes of Miller, too. It's near to the impression I remember. It's mentioned under the subtitle The Myopic Authors of Biographies. Austerlitz 88.72.3.70 11:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Miller and Jeffrey Masson

Today I have noticed that Jeffrey Masson and Alice Miller disagree about Freud. Miller says that Freud withdrew his knowledge about sexual abuse of children because he was not able to stand the knowledge about the deeds of his own parents. Masson says and proved -according to my judgement- that Freud has been threatened by the fact that he did not have a single adult scientist friend who backed him with his findings. Austerlitz 88.72.0.197 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I think Masson wants to say that in reality Freud has not given up this 'theory', he still believed it to be true. I wonder whether this difference is important, whether this might be the reason for Alice Miller never mentioning one of Masson's books in her books. Austerlitz 88.72.3.20 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz.
Freud was an evil man, as you can see in Thomas Szasz’s books Anti-Freud and The Myth of Psychotherapy.
I am not a wizard about wikipedia policies, but it seems that we are not supposed to use these pages for general chatting, only to improve the articles. If that is so we better stop this chatting before an angry administrator appears in this subpage.
I see you are fond to post monologues in the Jeffrey Masson talk page. May I suggest we better focus in how to improve the article? For instance, the article’s book references are undated. You could add dates if you wish...
—Cesar Tort 00:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cesar, ave.***********Austerlitz 88.72.0.24 09:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/s/User_talk%7ECesar_Tort_discussion_a101.html"