Different clinical theories valorize particular aspects of clinical understanding. The author describes the need for analysts to hold themselves accountable through thinking about the blind spots that result from prizing these particular lenses. He explores the concept of the pluralistic third, which aims to think about clinical work with the use of theory external to our own. In examining the very beginning phase of an unusual analysis, he tries to examine particular aspects of his work including survival as an object for the patient, analytic play, and enactment. Even among relational analysts there are profound differences in how we interpret and make use of countertransference, particularly our disjunctive subjectivity from that of our patient. These differences point to the value of asking particular questions regarding how to hold ourselves accountable within the analytic process.