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.
It is often said that faults are more easily seen in others than in one's self. Indeed, this would seem to be the main justification for employing someone other than one's self to be the analyst to whom one goes. The disadvantages of the arrangement become clear when the observer, psychoanalyst, sees faults that are his own in place of the defects of the analysand who supposedly has come to have his defects exposed, demonstrated (and dealt with?).
The relationship between myself and my colleagues here in Los Angeles could be accurately described as almost entirely unsuccessful. They are puzzled by, and cannot understand me – but have some respect for what they cannot understand. There is, if I am not mistaken, more fear than understanding or sympathy for my thoughts, personality or ideas. There is no question of the situation – the emotional situation – being any better anywhere else. I could say much the same for England. “The old order changeth, yielding place to new ….”
“Is this a dagger that I see before me, the handle towards my hand?” Suppose that on further examination it appears not to be, then the system of verbal expression, even the system of sensible experience, needs extension. It cannot deal with the domain of non-existent reality, of thoughts without realization (like Euclidean geometry with spatial realization), of sight available or accessible only to the blind, of thought without content. It took time for Balaam to achieve the standards of thought of his ass.
Who saw the dagger before him, the handle towards his hand? Shakespeare? Where was it? Where is it now? The words in print bear
no visual resemblance to a dagger. Nor do the sounds, if the words are transformed into spoken speech. Suppose a very good musician reads a musical score: does he become hallucinated? Does he suffer from auditory hallucinations?