what i know is right

all of freuds uncs mechanisms he discovered in dream analysis. the sole one i think is very dangerous because its so easy to believe its there and if it isn't you just completely sent pt into orbit, quite possibly for years, is REACTION FORMATION. you know when subject uncsly reverses his real feelings/projects them out. if therapist is reflecting his own desires/hostility its going to be very bad for the pt and could be used in a harmful way just by therapist being clumsy. so that one tends to be 'spotted' and not checked and double-checked. yes it happens, its actually the basic mechanism of the entire subcs...but by god its dangerous.
so all these mechanisms, some of which i have observed in action, either in myself or others[usually in groups] are perfectly real and the normal methods of defence in the mind. where they go wrong is if they become fixed or explosive; results in various states.
i also agree and accept that freuds general map as a base of ID, [producing libido and thanatos]. EGO and\ SUPERGO; the various different states producing classifiable symptoms and syndromes are all reasonable and generally observable. I also accept the ubiquity of penis envy in unresolved women. but i add another; easily seen in all little boys/some men; that of womb or 'baby' envy. the desire or belief found in many men that they wish they were able to have babies/breasts. a hostile form of this [denial] is expressed 'women have it easy/run things/always win' etc. i do not agree with the oedipal or the electra set-up. the first is heavily freuds favourite idea, found in his self-analysis. the second in reply to the storms of female protest at freuds obvious ignoring and sly denigration of females. the women were right. he does intend the concept of 'penis envy' to aggravate. and he was quite blind, as most men are, to its opposite just described, as found in men. but the regular storms of female fury on the subject demonstrate clearly that this desire is real, and thats that. but both the oedipal complex and the electra complex are dependent on a child living in a universe consisting entirely of m/f parents, where the m p has al the power, and this is backed up if all the childs experience of society is the same. so it is greatly lessened in other forms of social compact. therefore freuds reliance on the oedipal state is very much his fixation. he more or less decided the electra complex 'must exist' because he had to think of something. so we have a very detailed exposition on the male psyche; taken to be a louder version of the female pysche. remember freud never checked, or kept proper records, and limited his obs to 40 upper class females and himself. so do you see what i see? if you describe the male psyche by inferring from what you think is in the female psyche, and its somewhat hostile;and then its all denied; what you are seeing is..guess what? yes, reaction formation. he should have studied both sexes, compared, been a damn sight more scientific. and somehow both looked for his own hostility AND been a bit more neutral. As indeed he always claimed to have done. but we see fr the skewed list of subjects that he didn't, and thats that.So these are all the things..yes free association, dreams, anything to get to the cause AND the cure of the pts distress; yes i would include abreaction with pentothal if the pt is strong enough, and hypnosis in stubborn cases. With all this i agree. These things are real and it is vital that therapists understand and use them in a controlled fashion. this loathing of one school by another is stupid. everyone of them has something right, something useful. in the progressive development of mankind surely we need it all? anyway its unscientific; as i understand science in its essence to be co-operative. not bloody tribal.