В идиоме такая идея: соль является РЕСУРСОМ, для того чтобы съесть невкусную еду.

Ну а Эриксон пишет, мол, что утверждение Дж. о том, что он таки хочет "быть пациентом Э.", надо прямо обвалять в соли, чтобы смочь его проглотить.

Ну, это, конечно, издевательство: крупица соли вкус улучшает, но избыточное количество соли его ведь ухудшает.

Получается что-то вроде "ёжики продолжали есть кактус": Эриксон самоиронично так жалуется, что, мол, приходится продолжать потреблять эти ответы Джорджа, закусывая солью.

Ну, разве это не будет внушение "притворяться здоровым"? То есть нормальный пациент должен "играть в здорового человека", а "игра в пациента" это не нормально даже для человека с неврозами.

"Принять что-то с крупицей соли" – идиома, означающая "принять нечто скептически/с сильным недоверием".

Эриксон, как и в ряде предыдущих реплик, пишет с гиперболой: почти полный контейнер соли (а не одна крупица) сделал почти возжможным принятие вашего утверждения.

То есть мета-реплика идёт двойному адресату:
- на внешнем уровне, реплика терапевтам-в-роли-терапевтов, мол, "теперь вы знаете, как отвечать на (исходные) письма таких/подобных клиентов"
- вторым планом, реплика терапевтам-в-роли-клиентов – "получив такой ответ от терапевта на свои письма, вы знаете, как сделать самим себе терапию"

База параллельных текстов на русском и английском языке не бесконечная – вот и подцепили.

"Только оставаясь в неведении о причине, проблема может быть успешно сохранена"

(Jane looks to Erickson before reading the next letter. He nods, indicating that she should proceed.)

Jane: “March 11th. Dear Dr. Erickson. So direct of you to do away with needless formalities with a mere flick of the pen. I was totally unprepared for the ensuing onslaught. I hadn’t previously been aware of all those games (except for my procrastination game — as evidenced by my excuse concerning Dr. L.) which you so accurately perceived from my letter. Your perspicacity overwhelms me.
“There was an understandable tone of indignation (as well as compassion) in your letter. To arouse your ire was never my intent. Apparently you credit me with guile in trying to mislead you, which again, I never intended.
“My problem does not seem unfamiliar to you. In fact, I get that you read my letter as somewhat of a ‘form letter’ with the filled-in blanks from my particular history.
“Yes, I still do want to be your patient. Yes, my failure neurosis is highly treasured — aren’t they all? I offer my apology for being so presumptuous as to try to place a restriction upon therapy.
“I await your response. Yours, humbly, George Leckie.
P.S. I don’t usually stutter as severely as I did on the phone with you that day. I was especially nervous and fearful. I still am fearful of you.”

E: Then you know what you would do if you got a letter like that. But listen to his reply.

“March 7th. Dear Mr. Leckie. Since your telephone call to me to ask for help when you were unable to ask for help and had to be told how to communicate with me which you should have done without being told to do so, I will summarize your problem for you, perhaps hoping in vain that it may serve some purpose for you advantageously.
“Usually such phone calls as you made are not followed by the requested letter. If a letter is sent, there is a delay attributed to someone else — Dr. L. in your case.
“Next, there is an account of a long career in seeking help and not accepting it, but occasionally offering a brief token acceptance.
“Invariably there is a listing of probable and possible causes of the problem, thus insuring the possibility for the therapist to look in the wrong direction, thereby making more certain the continuance of the long career of diligent search without results. Only by remaining unaware of the cause can a problem be successfully retained.
“To demonstrate a consistency in patterns of behavior, other types of failures must be mentioned — for you, music, maturing, making a living, not getting a Ph.D.
“The letter would be incomplete without some neatly worded subtle threats. In your case, a promise to mistrust and not cooperate, among others.
“Most vital of all is the placing of a restriction, however small, upon therapy. It need not even be rational, just some kind of restriction, even an irrelevant one as was your restriction of Tuesday evenings through April. By what stretch of imagination did you manage to think that you could have any of my evenings?
“If you have read this letter to this point, surely the question must arise, ‘Do you want to be my patient?’ Does it not suggest that I might deal with your highly treasured problem, as attested by your seven years of devotion to drugs which at best can only impede speech?”
“Do I expect a reply to this letter???? Yours, with what you may consider abominable sincerity, Milton H.
Erickson, M.D.”