Changes

However, which such an [[interpretation]] may find some support in [[Freud]]'s earlier work,<ref>Freud 1908d</ref> [[Lacan]] is firmly opposed to such a view of [[Freud]], preferring the more pessimistic [[Freud]] of ''[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]''<ref>{{F}} 1930</ref>the analyst simply has to help the analysand free himself from moral constraintsand stating categorically that "Freud was in no way a progressive. "<ref>{{S7}} p. 183</ref>

[[Psychoanalysis]], then, is not simply a libertine ethos.

pessimistic Freud of Civilization and Its Discontents (Freud, 1930a) and stating categorically that 'Freud was in no way =====Moral Dilemma=====This seems to present the [[analyst]] with a progressivemoral dilemma."<ref>{{S7}} p.183</ref>

This seems to present On the analyst one hand, he cannot simply align himself with a moral dilemma[[ethics|civilised morality]], since this [[ethics|morality]] is pathogenic.

On the one other hand, nor can he cannot simply align himself with civilised moralityadopt an opposing libertine approach, since this too remains within the field of [[morality is pathogenic]].<ref>{{S7}} p. 3-4</ref>

On The rule of neutrality may seem to offer the other handanalyst a way out of this dilemma, but in fact it does not, nor can he simply adopt for [[Lacan]] points out that there is no such thing as an opposing libertine approach, since this too remains within the field of morality.<ref>{{S7}} p.3-4)[[ethics|ethically neutral position]].

The rule of neutrality may seem to offer the analyst a way out of this dilemma, but in fact it does not, for Lacan points out that there is no such thing as an ethically neutral position.  The [[analyst ]] cannot avoid, then, having to face [[ethics|ethical questions]].