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.
I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the discussion (Kavka, 1974) of my contribution at the last International Congress in Paris (Dupont, 1974).
Through his comments Dr Kavka shows clearly a profound interest in the subject, proved by the extent and erudition of his work.
I shall first discuss the points where there is some disagreement and I will then make brief comments related to aspects of the study of time as a model of thought development.
Dr Kavka's critical comments on the methodology of my work (that it lacks clinical material drawn from psychoanalytical work) forms the basis for his discussion and conclusions. He considers that, had my contribution been based on observations taken from the clinical material of patients in psychoanalysis, my conclusions would not have had metaphysical and introspective characteristics, but would instead have been metapsychological and clinical.
We would both be in perfect agreement if there was no clinical material in a contribution more extensive than mine. Agreement would also be reached if Dr Kavka did not maintain that most theories about time are based on clinical work with unanalysable cases rather than with patients in analysis. Such categorical statements as his tend to cast doubt over all the hypotheses related to the study of time, arising from the work with patients under psychoanalysis whether they be adults, adolescents or children, as is the case in my own work.
This viewpoint is of major interest because it serves as a basis for disagreement and lack of understanding between psychoanalysts working within different frameworks and with different theoretical models. It is my belief, for instance, that the analysability of a patient depends on a multiplicity of factors, stemming both from the patient and the psychoanalyst, which are above and beyond the diagnosis and the characteristics of the patient. I believe it is important to keep in mind that analysability is the final product of an interaction bet