From the author: About literary mysteries A real psychoanalytic conspiracy in the spirit of detective Dan Brown is unfolding before your eyes. I recently came across an interesting publication - “A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis” by Charles Rycroft. The book is of good quality, approved by the Eastern European Institute of Psychoanalysis, that is, you can refer to it in some kind of dispute. It was also interesting because it gave a rather local definition of psychoanalysis. An important point because the definition of psychoanalysis is sometimes as elusive as the definition of Zen Buddhism. The definition was worthy of being kept on record. However, my laziness intervened. I decided not to retype the text from the dusty tome, but simply download the dictionary from the Internet. And here I was surprised. The dictionary was on different sites in different formats, but the page about psychoanalysis was missing. You can see for yourself right now! There is a dictionary, but “psychoanalysis” is not in it! Isn't it strange? Psychoanalytic dictionary without definition of psychoanalysis. Maybe this is an advertising stripped-down version of the dictionary. And there are only half of the definitions for each letter? No. The definitions for the letter “S” ended with “sphincter,” and those for the letter “O” ended with “sensation.” This means that they are not advertising versions. This means that it was the definitions on “P” that were trimmed. What did those missing pages contain? But in general, everything that was about the psyche of psychology and with the root “ps-”. It’s hard not to notice such an inaccuracy, wouldn’t you agree? On the other hand, it is unlikely that Charles Rycroft wrote anything surprising and original about the psyche that could provoke censorship. But there is something in the definition of psychoanalysis. Key defining concepts: a) FREE ASSOCIATION, which replaced HYPNOSIS, b) INTERPRETATION, which replaced suggestion... “Replaced” is a good word. But it’s very similar to “interchangeable”, in my opinion. This means that psychoanalysis on these pages loses its exclusivity and mystery. If we assume that interpretation is still the same suggestion only given under a different name, it turns out that psychoanalysis is a special form of light hypnosis. Perhaps this is a huge mistake by the copyist, or perhaps behind this lies the private opinion of that same copyist, who says there is no need to write about it so openly. It’s hard to believe in any broader censorship mechanisms... But anything is possible. The main thing is that we have another parallel that connects psychoanalysis with other schools of psychology. For us, their similarity may not be so important. But for people suffering from schizophrenia, a range of opinions leads to panic and reduces trust.