You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
THE FATE OF MANY a truth is to be recognized finally as an error. This progression has occurred repeatedly in the history of science. It also attends the day-by-day experiences of the psychoanalyst. If what is thought to be truth is later proven to be error it is essential to ask whether there is any kind of knowledge which is certainly valid and, if so, what are the tests of validity. Such concerns apply with particular relevance to the interpretation and use of dreams in psychoanalysis.
The problem being raised is an epistemological one. How does one formulate psychodynamic truth; by what means is it acquired; by what norms can valid information be distinguished from falsity? It is suggested that one approach analytic materials from a transactional (Sullivanian) point of view in which a major focus is the making of correlations between and among data of all levels and epochs. The validating procedure is one of identifying the congruities among the data rather than in discerning their approximation to an overriding theory.
The process is one of cross-validation of various aspects of the patient's characteristic or repetitive modes of integrating situations with others. The materials examined include both manifest and latent content in waking as well as in dream activities from any period of the patient's life. The interactions of patient, materials, and analyst result in the accentuating of properties common to all. The effect is a spiral, not a linear progression, with a regular return to earlier results. Psychoanalysis is like Penelope's task: each step forward offers a new hope which hangs on the solution of a new task. Any stage of an analysis, be it of dream or waking life, is a transitory phenomenon which is reflected in the effort of interpretation.