ABSTRACT
There will be agreement with much of what Hillman says in his paper. That analysis is the central feature of training, that candidates must take cases under supervision, and that Jung’s works should be closely studied can all be considered as of the first importance. Likewise, the value of group life is well recognized and is being made the subject of searching inquiry in many quarters. I should, however, be giving a false impression if, in saying this, I did not add that I think that some of the agreement, will be based on inadequate grounds. All points of agreement, with the exception of reading Jung’s works, need to be kept under constant review, and the basic assumptions clarified and if necessary revised in the light of experience based on experiments. Hillman states, almost apologetically, that the Institute’s work is experimental, inferring that this is owing to the lack of adequate tradition. For my part, I think it will be a sad day if tradition ever replaces experiment combined with reflection on the ideas which have made experiments possible.
