Examples could be given until the last trump is sounded and the world rolled
up like a scroll, but I do not want to keep any one so long. Whatever we
wish to make out of a dream--the dramatization of a fear, a joy, a joke
(really this is what the Freudians often do), a tragedy, anything that can
be suggested, the result can easily be accomplished if only we be allowed
the use of Freud's mechanisms and a moderate amount of symbolism.

I have tried to show: First, that any situation or experience can be
analyzed with as good success as a dream, and second, that a dream may be
made to mean anything. In other words, with Freud's method, one can
demonstrate anything to suit his taste or belief. Long ago, the saying was
formulated that all roads lead to Rome. This being true, it must also be
true that all roads lead everywhere else. Freud employs a wonderful figure
of a mystical sphere, with its layers and cross veins and other
mineralogical characteristics, to represent the part of consciousness with
the repressed factor at the center well guarded. It would be far more to the
point if he should represent the whole of past experience as the surface of
a country, with its various roads connecting the different centers. The
stations would then represent the experiences, and the roads the association
tracks between them. If one should travel at random over these roads, he
would in time pass through all kinds of towns and cities, but if he started
in quest of a certain type, say mountain villages, he would arrive at his
goal much more quickly than he would otherwise. The Freudians themselves
acknowledge that they have difficulty in knowing when to stop the analysis.
Their plan seems to be to travel until the landscape suits them and then get
off and camp.

Thus, while I have made no attempt to give positive proof or argument that
Freud's theory, in its extreme form is at fault, I have tried to
substantiate my argument that there has been no real argument on the other