Third Day

The final day began with a plenary session, chaired by Dr J. Anthony, with summary reports on the continuation of the individual group discussions given by the three recorders. The chairman opened the meeting as follows.

I want to express my tremendous pleasure in being in Hampstead on the occasion of what I would call a mini-conference. It is a marvellous idea, just right for us, not too large or too small, with people being able to talk freely and a wide range of ideas to discuss.

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that ever since he was a child he has refused to eat suet pudding because, he said, it had no theme. Well, I had the same feeling about Insight when I came—that it had no theme. But now I know that it has, and that there are raisins and sultanas: all sorts of new discoveries that I have made in the last few days. I feel that when I have finished I will be going home with a rich Christmas cake.

There now follows Dr L. Shengold's and Dr S. Abrams' summary of the second day's discussion in Group One, chaired, on this occasion, by Dr S. Abrams.

Group One had assigned itself the task of studying the acquisition of insight by comparing clinical material from children and adults. In his position paper, Dr Anthony presented the contrast between child analysis and adult analysis from developmental, dynamic and dialectic perspectives. He co-ordinated Piaget's genetic epistemology and Freud's dynamic epistemology. Both men emphasized that the child's need to know has near-drive intensity; both recognized the limitations of knowing based on the prevailing developmental stage of the psychic organization. Piaget stressed the child's increasing knowledge of the outer world, the universe, the non-self—with concomitant restructuring and accommodation; Dr Anthony recalled that Miss Freud in her opening remarks on Friday had also described this enthusiastic turning outward, but had presented us also with the counterpoint of the inevitable dimming of the child's aware