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 supreme importance of transference lies in its use in the practice of psychoanalysis. It is available for observation by analysands and analysts. In this respect it is unique – that is its strength and its weakness; its strength, because the two people have a ‘fact’ available to both and therefore open for discussion by both; its weakness, because it is ineffable and cannot be discussed by anyone else. The failure to recognize this simple fact has led to confusion.
The ideogram evokes free association; the alphabet does not. What of the Miltonic spelling? Its emphatic intonation? And ideogrammatic impulsiveness in geometry? Is it related to the visual image as algebra is not? But Arabic numerals are not more related to the ideogram than algebraic. The first few Roman numerals are nearer to ideogrammatic, visual tallies than are Arabic numerals.
‘Unconscioused’ = unbewusst. Oh, for a similar word for ‘projective identification’; ‘identijected’, as contrasted with ‘unconscioused’.
The matter of ownership crops up with territory; it certainly causes trouble in the realm of ideas. Why? Does anyone claim ownership of a lie? Of course not, because as the question is formulated the lie is worthless – it represents worthless property. [Added as a footnote: ‘But what about Judith and Holofernes? That lie, deception, was valuable.’] [see The Book of Judith from The Apocrypha.] Worth is that which enhances the value of the person to his community; it must be distinguished from apparent or reputed worth. In the domain of
thought, values are contingent. An attempt is made to differentiate contingent values from absolute values by assuming that absolute values are those that are deemed to be so ‘in the eyes of God’. What does that mean?