Lipton’s Journal/January 31, 1955/339: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Lipton’s Journal/January 31, 1955/339 (view source)

Revision as of 09:30, 29 July 2022

6 bytes added , 29 July 2022

CE.

Grlucas

Bureaucrats, Administrators

10,115

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 So they begin, inevitably, step by step—in society’s view they are people who start to deteriorate or take on airs. Sooner or later, for most of them, comes the crisis. The breakdown, the dead-end, the rout or the trench-warfare of {{LJ:H}} vs. {{LJ:S}}, and so they flee to the analyst. The analyst in his social function with rare exceptions is the man who turns people back to their starting point. So, in a case like my father’s, a good result would have been achieved perhaps—the small artist in him would have emerged in small ways. I would probably have been turned back if I had had a bad but powerful analyst, to the bourgeois in me.
-The reason a successful analysis gives generally more comfort and less creativity is that the H is utilized to justify the S. One accepts society, not oneself—the advertisements of the analysts to the contrary—end so one emerges “contented” but always the prey of “stabbing” regrets. Did one lose something is the recurring obsession of the successful analysands. But for analyst to do the opposite—to make the S accommodate itself to the H, rather than vice-versa, is to set the patient off in his own small way toward becoming a genius. Which means beauty and danger, exaltation and terror. How many people can bear that?
+The reason a successful analysis gives generally more comfort and less creativity is that the H is utilized to justify the S. One accepts society, not oneself—the advertisements of the analysts to the contrary—and so one emerges “contented” but always the prey of “stabbing” regrets. Did one lose something is the recurring obsession of the successful analysands. But for the analyst to do the opposite—to make the S accommodate itself to the H, rather than vice-versa, is to set the patient off in his own small way toward becoming a genius. Which means beauty and danger, exaltation and terror. How many people can bear that?
-For better reasons the analyst in his social cowardice, to take the H uncovered and turn it upon oneself. Implicit in conventional analysis is the idea that the unconscious is dirty, petty, childish, ugly, aggressive, disturbing—the social brute animal which must be cleansed. . . and tamed. So each H which reveals itself is seen through the eyes of S (as people we sense everything both in S-ways and H-ways, usually simultaneously, but with one or the other in predominance) and seen through the eyes of S by both analyst and patient.
+Far better, reasons the analyst in his social cowardice, to take the H uncovered and turn it upon oneself. Implicit in conventional analysis is the idea that the unconscious is dirty, petty, childish, ugly, aggressive, disturbing—the social brute animal which must be cleansed . . . and tamed. So each H which reveals itself is seen through the eyes of S (as people we sense everything both in S-ways and H-ways, usually simultaneously, but with one or the other in predominance) and seen through the eyes of S by both analyst and patient.
 Therefore, a more elaborate social defense, a more flexible S, is devised “by ear” between patient and analyst to “handle” this “drive.” Successful analyses, that is conventional successful analyses, do nothing for the H except confuse it, but they do give a wonderfully flexible and sensitive set of S-defenses. Which is why successful analysands always have that “pious” quality. They can name anything you do. They are to the soul, as the pious man is to real religion—a caricature of it, a diminisher, a reducer.