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.
In replying to the impressively thoughtful and thought-provoking discussions of my paper by Sandra Beuchler and Martin Stephen Frommer, I engage with ideas and questions raised by each of them. Responding to Sandra Beuchler, I elaborate on the specific reciprocal context of my analytic relationship with Frank that shaped manifestations of my state-shift following my illness and existential exposure. Echoing her question of “Whose Illness Is It,” I ask, “Whose State Shift Is It?” I resonate with much that Sandra Beuchler writes about the enactment of personal values, about human vulnerability, and about the need to inspire rather than command a patient's engagement in analytic process. Responding to Martin Stephen Frommer, I address several of his finely elaborated questions about shame, disgust, mortal vulnerability, the intersubjective context, and the existential Third. I reply to his conjecture that homoerotic transference was insufficiently addressed in the treatment process, raising my own questions about technical priorities and choices. Finally, I take up his question, and my own in “Inside Out,” of whether a state-shift prompted by transient mortal exposure can remain permanent once the evocative existential crisis has been left behind. I ask, Do we ever leave it behind?