ABSTRACT
In psychoanalysis, by contrast , though we have been living under the monumental imprint of our founding genius, Sigmund Freud (who almost more than any other man in human intellectual history brought into being singlehandedly an entire field of knowledge and its organizing world view) , there has been among us, at all times, much less agreement on the nature of our field-as a theory, as a technique, and as a treatment. And I don't think that that is necessarily a function of our young, still uncrystallized science; this lack of consensus may be just a matter of the essential nature of our field, and perhaps the search for greater clarification of conceptual differences that will lead to more precise understanding of the scope, nature, and defining parameters of psychoanalysis is a chimerical and ultimately futile quest. Drawing on what I have gleaned from Tyson's paper, I would like to clarify what I mean by all this.
