It is argued that Dr. Dobson misconstrues my argument for a second process. My claim is not that Kohut did not have a vision of the future, but that his clinical technique lagged behind that vision. Internalization and interpretation are not designed to facilitate the creation of what has never been. Kohut's goal of articulating the nuclear program of the self requires the establishment of a potential space to create something new, a process distinct from analysis of transference. Against Dobson, I argue that to call the use of the analytic relationship to create a new future “transference” is to dilute and confuse the concept. Many analyses have been successful while conceptualizing only a single process of transference analysis because the analysis as practiced is not equivalent to the theory in the analyst's mind. Reiss's comments provide the opportunity to discuss the value and limitations of postmodern theory.