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.

 Ken Armstrong