I think you are right that for him it was a resolution of a kind. Much of his
objection to psychology was that it limited resolution to individual emotions.
Vittoz's method can be read as reconnecting with something larger. (not
that it must be) But I do think that therapy based in talking out one's pain
is different from controlling it, as psychoanalysis differs from behaviorist
models. I am not qualified to judge the degree to which either effects
"cures" or greater emotional health. But I think that Eliot's drinking and
smoking and often reported strange behavior suggests that he had to
sustain what Pat noted as his "coping mechanisms." Unfortunately they
also contributed to his poor health.
Date sent: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 08:34:26 -0400
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
From: Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: psychiatrist or psychoanalyst?
--On Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:39 AM -0400 Nancy Gish
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Whether it was a very effective method is another matter; it depends on
> the results one wants. I would think the sources of the emotional
> stress are not so much removed as deeply suppressed. Nancy
My impression from admittedly random reading is that whether any
is effective is another matter. I don't know whether "removing" the
sources of emotional stress is accomplished by any form of psychiatry or
psychoanalysis, but I wonder whether, in the instance here, declaring his
religion didn't do something like that for TSE. To at least some degree,
confessing is confessing.