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.
If, as I believe, the mind grows in proportion to the extent to which one inquiries into it, then the relative proportions of what is known and what is unknown will be reversed the more the mind has evolved. Thus, at the end of a psychoanalytic treatment, we shall know proportionately less of this extended mind than we knew of it at the beginning.
Perhaps the immobility of the things that surround us is forced upon them by our conviction that they are themselves and not anything else [— that is] by the immobility of our conception of Them.
It is an honor to be invited to discuss the work of Dr. Giuseppe Civitarese and to dream post-Bionian analysis further. This is the 75th anniversary of psychoanalysis in San Francisco, and, if we are still catching sight of new fields of approach, it is by standing on the shoulders of previous analytic generations. Thankfully, as Civitarese's work shows (Civitarese, 2010, 2013, 2015, , 2017), our theories are in an intense state of generativity. Back in 1942 many of today's most visionary theorists, Bion prime amongst them, had yet even to put pen to paper. Even in the early ‘80s when I entered the field, the local analytic landscape was narrowly grounded in American ego psychology, and the British were yet to sail up over the horizon. Now, years later, not only have the British landed, but so have the French, the Latin Americans, and the Italians! The theoretical topography has opened up panoramically, and to the arrival of Bionion thought, we are indebted to Los