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.
Knowing Mrs Klein, I am unwilling to suppose she had not sufficient supporting evidence for the robin interpretation.2 On the other hand,
[Klein , Narrative of a Child Analysis. Ed.]
it is impossible to be satisfied with the formulation of evidence as she formulates it. She says, ‘when the robin has stood for his genital’. This is now an established fact, and in her mind I am sure it is so. As Kant says (Critique, B7, p. 46), we should assure ourselves of the foundations on which any structure is built. How?
As futile as finding the cause? The criminal? The mystic? The messianic idea? The ‘curse‘? How do ideas spread? Parasitism? Symbiosis? Communalism? Violence-murder and robbery? Cross infection – the violent container is destroyed by the contained object?
The central point about psychoanalysis, in this context, is its demonstration of the difficulty of tracing the history of any idea, especially if ownership is thought to be important. The judgement of Solomon is based on the idea that the owner is the one who is prepared to pay, or does pay, the cost of suffering of being responsible for the idea. There does not appear to be anything sacrosanct about the idea or about ‘responsibility’ for it. ‘Idea’ seems to be a term representing a realization in itself.