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.
Freud’s thinking developed out of nineteenth century physics, which emphasized the reality of the outer world. It was from this background that Freud attacked religion and philosophy. However, Winnicott moved beyond the dichotomy of the real and the imaginary by proposing a third area which is neither inside nor outside. His view is much different from the empiricist view of reality and the ideal of objectivity. The structure of knowing is laid down in the early interactional relationship, and human knowing is a transitional process. Jones states, “Psychoanalysis is an inherently epistemological enterprise, laying bare the dynamic forces at work in the various forms of human knowing.” The author compares Loewald to Winnicott; both describe the creative power of a state of consciousness in which the distinction between inner and outer, objective and subjective, fades. Our reality is shaped by the metaphors, which are transitional phenomena, through which experience is mediated. The metaphors we use create our realities. The alternative to objectivism is not only subjectivity, but the understanding of the world through our interactions with it. This is an “interactionalist epistemology.” Jones concludes that no hard or fast lines can be drawn between objective and subjective spheres, which are products of reason and of imagination, respectively. Winnicott’s concern was to transcend the dualism of reason and imagination and to reinstate a third or transitional realm— that of imaginative interaction—as a source of knowledge.