Comment

On reading Plaut's paper carefully one becomes aware to begin with of all the things that we as therapists do not actually do. This, no doubt, is in keeping with the author's intention: he leads us into only too well-known and hence also unconscious therapeutic situations which represent the lasting focus for the patient in search of therapy as much as for the therapist.

Such situations, like any situation which one takes seriously, are educationally highly effective. Therefore, the author does not tell us what we actually do in a given situation; even less does he provide us with a prescription for what we should do. His method seems maieutic (pertaining to the Socratic method of bringing out latent conceptions). He stimulates us to reflect on what we may possibly have brought about in a given therapeutic situation.

Accordingly, we would seem to collect experiences—and not only out of scientific curiosity—firstly by looking back, therapy having been completed. From this distance we can learn by means of the congruity or incongruity between therapeutic and analytical results (as defined) what it is that we conceivably have done. Secondly, we gather information by misunderstandings as they occur from time to time in the actual situation between patient and analyst. But what precisely goes on in situations of such complexity, what it is that transforms misunderstandings into deeper understanding, remains unknown.