Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Heinz Hartmann emphasized the importance of the problems discussed by Freud in Analysis Terminable and Interminable and further examined here by Dr. Lampl-de Groot. He disagrees with Strachey's introduction to Freud's paper; Strachey neglects the novelty of ideas presented by Freud, as well as their theoretical importance. While observing that the concepts of the coenesthetic and diacritic organizations have yet to be defined in psychoanalytic terms, Dr. Hartmann agreed that the inability of the analyst to empathize with the early developmental phases could become an obstacle. He noted that we have much to learn about aggression and early conflict.

Dr. Kenneth Calder asked whether Dr. Lampl-de Groot thought that despite the difficulty of evaluating the ability to regress in the service of the ego, one might evaluate the capacity or incapacity for change. Are there clues early in evaluation as to what is and is not modifiable?

Dr. Joachim Flescher observed that the revival of the deepest layers of the patient's personality brings with it fear of the analyst who is viewed as a destructive and all-powerful figure. Fear of retaliation prevents the patient from expressing certain feelings in the one-to-one relationship. Dual therapy combines the advantages of analysis and group therapy in supplying the patient with a third person for protection, particularly from the countertransference of the analyst.

In conclusion, Dr. Lampl-de Groot expressed her appreciation of Dr. Hartmann's suggestion that we need to study the development of aggression. In reply to Dr. Calder, she said that it is the interactions of the genetic givens with the maternal influence that are subject to modification; if the analyst can understand the infant-mother dyad, he may free some repressed possibilities. With respect to Dr. Flescher's comments, Dr. Lampl-de Groot stressed the difference between group therapy and analysis. While some patients might find it easier to express