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.
5 March 1912, Vienna, IX. Berggasse 19
Dear friend,
Why so “pensive” when the situation is so simple? I have pointed out to you that the Association cannot prosper when the president loses interest in it over a period of months, especially when he has so unreliable an assistant as our friend Riklin. You seem to recognize that I am right, which disposes of one point. You make it clear to me that you don't wish to write to me at present, and I reply that I am trying to make the privation easy for myself. Isn't that my right? Isn't it a necessary act of self-defence?
Otherwise we agree about everything. You write that you have always thought your past and prospective contributions to the cause should mean more to me than your “personal nastiness and awkwardness”—(your friends would put it more mildly and speak of your “moods”). I beg you to go on thinking so. The indestructible foundation of our personal relationship is our involvement in ΨA; but on this foundation it seemed tempting to build something finer though more labile, a reciprocal intimate friendship. Shouldn't we go on building?
You speak of the need for intellectual independence and quote Nietzsche in support of your view. I am in full agreement. But if a third party were to read this passage, he would ask me when1 I had tried to tyrannize you intellectually, and I should have to say: I don't know. I don't believe I ever did. Adler, it is true, made similar complaints, but I am convinced that his neurosis was speaking for him. Still, if you think you want greater freedom from me, what can I do but give up my feeling of urgency about our relationship, occupy my unemployed libido elsewhere, and bide my time until you discover that you can tolerate greater intimacy? When that happens, you will