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.
DISCUSSION. Dr. Harkavy made two points. First, he wanted to know how Dr. Fessler distinguishes the predominant role of the ego in humor from the type of defense termed witzelsucht. Second, he pointed out that the example of orgasm for the predominance of the id seems to leave out the choice of object, which is an ego function; he noted also that orgasm seems to have no relevance to the fantasy content of masturbation. Dr. Bychowski suggested that Dr. Fessler supplement a few of his remarks which seemed 'elliptic' and 'aphoristic'. He was surprised that Dr. Fessler made no distinction between devotion and ecstasy: ecstasy is the abolition of the limitation between ego and the nonego of the ego boundaries, a fusion with God or with supreme reality but psychologically it is not a devotion. Dr. Bychowski said that he hoped Dr. Fessler would reformulate the relation between the id and the superego. In the ecstasy of the prophets the superego becomes completely identified with the introject; subsequently the introject is reprojected. Dr. Brodsky commented that Dr. Fessler's paper fits with present psychoanalytic orientation in maintaining the importance of biological thinking in psychoanalysis. Even in some very complex phenomena, such as devotion or humor, the subject reverts in the midst of a very complex psychological structure and performance to one basically biological.