members of the psychoanalytic and related professions,
reject the real scientific development of their theories,
create, uphold, and assert the maxim, “No analysis can ever be complete”,
try to intrude into and destroy the works of those who aim for the stars?
There are some pieces of the answer in the Parts #1 and #2 of the Section 8, “From an Art to a Science”, when:
none of the “Reviewers” had the slightest possibility of even reading the papers,
operative transferences of different types were everywhere,
symptomatic emotions (anger, fear) went with them,
the main theme was that the researcher was, “incapable? “stupid”?
(i.e. they wanted him out of their profession’s way, and eliminated all possibilities of the papers being published for others to see)
It was very clear that all of their analyses were of the “No analysis is ever complete” kind. And given the extremes of these particular unwitting “reviews”, they fall in the category of “failed analyses”.
Is that then where the problem lies? Dr. A. had had experience with the use of the Scientific Method in the fifth year of his medical training when I was invited to join the US’s AOA group and carry out a real research to become so. Then, when he examined his own “training analysis” after he had finished, and was out of the danger of talking freely, he knew it was going nowhere. And when the analyst ended it six years later for a veiled convenience, the studies he had been doing by way of Medicine’s Scientific Method, took him to a remarkable Clinical and Self-Analytic research career that dismantled the stuck belief that a complete analysis was impossible. He was much frightened at times, but an established, reliable method that allowed a systematic procession from surfaces to layers to drives” enabled him to proceed.
And his final “Clinical and Self Researches” Book takes the latter type to root symptom sources.