On: Whose Bion?

Dear Sirs,

I want to compliment the Editors for their great idea of having noted analysts express their personal views on the works of W.R. Bion at this time in our history, and to have selected such a representative threesome. In this regard, O'shaughnessy's negative remarks regarding Bion's writings after 1964 (2005) it would seem, correspond

roughly to the point in his career when he left London and came to Los Angeles; her criticisms here being consistent, I feel, with the rumor that British Kleinians never quite forgave him for leaving. My understanding is that his decision came from a fear that ‘His epitaph might be “He was loaded with honours and sank without a trace”.’ (1966, p. 575). On the other hand, the other contributors take quite a different position: Ferro comments on the extent to which he feels ‘enriched’ with each reading and discussion, particularly with regards to Bion's later efforts (2005); and de Bianchedi (2005), who, along with her co-authors in the preface to Grinberg et al. describe his ‘new contributions’ as being ‘rich in stimulating ideas and formulations’ (1993).

The reference to ‘sacred texts’ (O'shaughnessy, 2005, p. 1527), furthermore, seems hardly applicable to Bion and contrary to his major contribution of ‘eschewing memory and desire’ (Bion, 1970), etc., so as to allow the evolution from incoherence (PS) to coherence (D) to take place. Speaking of ‘evolution,’ it appears that most analysts have not considered the ‘catastrophic change’ that Bion himself went through which ultimately led to his recognizing the importance of the analyst being able to achieve this discipline. This advance in his thinking was revealed in Bion (1967), which, while included in O'shaughnessy's references, was not cited.

Bion (1967) was offered for comment to a panel of analysts from around the world. In it, Bion writes that psychoanalytic observation ‘is not concerned with sense impressions or objects of sense’ (p. 276), a comment that contradicted what