Response

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to these two most interesting and challenging discussions, and I thank Drs Green and Wender for undertaking the task of discussing my paper.

I will begin with Dr Green's remarks.

I should say, firstly, that in accepting Dr Tyson's kind invitation to submit a paper for this Congress, I understood my task to be one of describing certain experiences I had had in sessions, as a way of contributing to the intriguing question that concerns us here: what takes place in the mind of the analyst between listening and interpretation? I had no thought of presenting a full account of an analytic case, making a statement about how analysis should be conducted, or defending a particular theory or technique. Nor was it my purpose to write a scholarly paper replete with references (for which omission Dr Green has taken me to task). I wished simply to share the thoughts and fantasies that arose in my mind during one hour as a springboard for discussion of the topic of this meeting.

I was surprised, then, not only by the tone of Dr Green's remarks but by the substance of his discussion. On the slightest of evidence he undertakes a searching criticism, not only of the analytic hour that I presented, but of my overall analytic approach.

I find myself, therefore, in the unexpected, and decidedly uncomfortable, position of having to defend, not only my work with Mr V in the session that I described, but my way of thinking and functioning as an analyst.

Although I am reluctant to do this, since we are clearly here for quite another purpose, I feel that I owe it both to Dr Green and myself to reply to his criticism, if for no other reason than to correct certain misunderstandings on his part and to clarify my views on several issues. I hope that this clarification of some areas of agreement and disagreement between us will prove useful to the overall purposes of this meeting.

Based on a condensed report of a single analytic hour, one of more t