A close examination of Naso's (1992) commentary on my article (Loewenstein, 1992) reveals contradictions which point to its author's lack of a clear philosophical commitment. While Naso's statements appear to be informed by a relativistic perspective his argument is constrained by an unarticulated positivistic view-point Naso's criticism of my style, which he describes as metaphoric and evocative, is examined. Contrary to Naso's claim, scientific style does not possess a privileged access to psychoanalytic life history. Moreover, the meanings and affective valences of historical events are not fixed and static, as Naso implies, but contextual and dynamic.