Jump to content

Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/532: Difference between revisions

Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/532 (view source)

Revision as of 09:28, 10 August 2023

No change in size ,  10 August 2023
m
Removed hyphen.
m (ce.)
m (Removed hyphen.)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
Now, of course, an analyst tries not to convey his attitude to the patient. An analyst will drop dead at a cocktail party before he admits that he ever directs a patient. But the fact is that they do. The analyst in most cases is a rebel who retreated, and that is a very uncomfortable position—very power-obsessed but with no vocational sanction to wield power.  
Now, of course, an analyst tries not to convey his attitude to the patient. An analyst will drop dead at a cocktail party before he admits that he ever directs a patient. But the fact is that they do. The analyst in most cases is a rebel who retreated, and that is a very uncomfortable position—very power-obsessed but with no vocational sanction to wield power.  


So, truly, in many cases, the analyst is sitting in a hotter seat than the patient. And the patient suspects this but cannot bear to believe it. Mother-father-embodiment must be strong or there’s nothing left. Moreover, the super-sensitized relation of analyst-patient creates empathies, approaches to telepathy, and telepathy itself all the time. Like the wall of Mendes-France{{refn|French Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1954-55, [[w:Pierre Mendès France|Pierre Mendès-France]] (1907-82), wrote an account of his 1941 escape from a Vichy prison, “Escape: How I Fled to Freedom,” in the December 24, 1954 issue of ''Collier’s''.}} which was studied for six months and so became a ladder, the impassive face of the analyst or rather the impassive voice (for the analyst is seen usually only at the beginning and the end of the hour) reveals a whole gamut of reactions, and they are not all paranoid projections of the patient.  
So, truly, in many cases, the analyst is sitting in a hotter seat than the patient. And the patient suspects this but cannot bear to believe it. Mother-father-embodiment must be strong or there’s nothing left. Moreover, the super-sensitized relation of analyst-patient creates empathies, approaches to telepathy, and telepathy itself all the time. Like the wall of Mendes-France{{refn|French Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1954-55, [[w:Pierre Mendès France|Pierre Mendès France]] (1907-82), wrote an account of his 1941 escape from a Vichy prison, “Escape: How I Fled to Freedom,” in the December 24, 1954 issue of ''Collier’s''.}} which was studied for six months and so became a ladder, the impassive face of the analyst or rather the impassive voice (for the analyst is seen usually only at the beginning and the end of the hour) reveals a whole gamut of reactions, and they are not all paranoid projections of the patient.  


The ridiculous assumption under Freudian practice is that the patient should be alone in a room talking to a dummy, a wax dummy. If the analyst “dummy” were actually a dummy there might be some justification to saying that all the patient’s material and interpretation of the analyst was a projection, but given a human being no matter how determinedly impassive, the hyper-acute sensitivity and NEED of the patient penetrates the façade.  
The ridiculous assumption under Freudian practice is that the patient should be alone in a room talking to a dummy, a wax dummy. If the analyst “dummy” were actually a dummy there might be some justification to saying that all the patient’s material and interpretation of the analyst was a projection, but given a human being no matter how determinedly impassive, the hyper-acute sensitivity and NEED of the patient penetrates the façade.  
Retrieved from "https://projectmailer.net/pm/Special:MobileDiff/16445"