Lack of space makes it difficult for Carl Lesche to present his metascience of psychoanalysis in a comprehensible way. Also, it is difficult to do justice to his thinking in a still shorter commentary on his paper. This particular paper, it should be noticed, is only a small part of the penetrating and impressive work on the fundamental nature of psychoanalysis by this very erudite Swedish analyst and metascientist or, to use K. B. Madsen's term, metatheoretician. Maybe the best thing I can do is to try to translate some of Lesche's most central concepts into a less esoteric and less lapidary language than the one he has used, to point to some of his arguments which I find irrefutable, and finally to make some critical remarks on parts of his reasoning which I find difficult to follow.