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.
Curiosity and surprise: this is a good state of mind in which to come together and explore the creative power of dialogue. I expect this Conference2 to have the refreshing effect instilled in me by the work of the pioneers, at a time when everything was to be done. Throughout this Conference, we have been seeking to discover the implicit basic assumptions that underlie the positions that each of us takes in our psychoanalytical dialogue. Our purpose is to grasp what we hear when a colleague speaks, paying special attention to the context of the culture to which he belongs, respecting as much as we can the specific issues, without immediately translating his problems into our own terms. We wish to avoid any temptation to propose a synthesis, or anything that could be taken for a unified conception of psychoanalytical thought. We are trying to understand differences, and to respect them for what they are. My aim is to meet these requirements in my own presentation.
Since the concept of Nachträglichkeit (après-coup) is lacking in some psychoanalytical cultures, I thought it interesting to take another look at it. I should like to do so from a personal perspective and then to elicit your view in a dialogue.