FR> His belief in an "Id" hasn't borne out but I think he was spot on
 -> when FR>it comes to the Ego and the subconcious.
 KK> I agree with others that the discovery of the unconscious is one of
 -> the greatest discoveries of all time.  And that's the weirdest thing
 -> about it: something that's an ordinary, central part of our lives had to
 -> be discovered.  Sort of like a flashlight that's only conscious
 HW> It seems you may be suggesting Freud discovered the unconscious. This is
 HW> not the case.  It's referred to in many places, e.g. Nietsche, and  (I'm
 HW> told} Liebnitz. Neither did F discover childhood sexuality. None of this
 HW> is to say that I agree with Mr. Rice that F is to be discredited
 HW> because, early in his career he believed that the nose played a key role
 HW> in neurosis.  This is a kind of smear, or at any rate does not go to the
 HW> points  {F's contribution} at issue.  Atheists of old said some pretty
 HW> weird things too. Hal.
   EVERY scholar and scientist has antecedents.  Discrediting Freud is a
senseless, useless enterprise not worth the time spent on it.  Nearly all of
his students broke with him.  The speculation that Freud derived much of his
notion of the unconsious from Nietzshe has been advanced as a strong
possibility but as far as I know it is STILL only speculation. I've not seen
ANY proof that Freud read a lot of Nietzsche.  It is certainly not out of
the realm of possibility because Nietzsche was a superb psychologist.  Trying
to debunk Freud is sort of like debunking the early Edison cylinder
phonographs.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------