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.
Dr. Horowitz makes more cogent points in his very lucid paper than I can possibly cover. He reminds us what we too often forget, that the scientific criteria by which psychoanalysis is to be assessed are closer to those of history than to the physical sciences, a point made by Robert Waelder (1962) in his notable discussion with philosophers and others (not all of whom were that friendly).
Dr. Horowitz goes on to emphasize patterns and repetitiveness in our study of character—so simple a point, so well made. We anticipate that he or she will do it again, and we are right more often than wrong. To give you an example: When I was notified of the form of this symposium, I was concerned. We might be faced with four dreadful papers. When I saw the names of the contributors my anxiety was completely relieved. I knew what they could do and I was right. I used my observations of character. They adhered to their previous patterns and repeated them—not in their presentations, but in their achievement of a certain level of excellence.
To digress for a moment: We may recall the original meaning of the word symposium. It dates back two and one half millenia and refers to a convivial drinking party. The most famous symposium takes up the nature of love. Here we have turned wine into water and love into transference. Is that progress?
Dr. Horowitz describes the role of the transference in making sense out of the inchoate mass of past memories and making the unfamiliar (and anxiety-producing) familiar and less threatening. The transference is not only there, it has a profound usefulness (Brian Bird saw it as an essential function of the ego).
He goes on to make another striking point, the usefulness of observing the manifest transference as a clue to understanding the