три цитаты
из книги “The Tavistock Seminars”, автор Wilfred R. Bion, издательство Karnac Books, 2005. Курсив автора.
Freud pointed out how important it is not to indulge your imagination, to stick to facts. I entirely agree with that - and am constantly contradicting that. I say to people in a supervision, “Look - when you are with the patient you have to be careful what you say. I am sure you ought to give correct interpretations, but not here - here, I would like you to give your examination a bit of exercise. So, say anything, however silly, idiotic, stupid, unjustified it is. Then, after you have said it, we’ll get onto another point - ‘what is the evidence’ - and so on. But in the meantime, cut out all of that and concentrate on what you imagine - speculative imagination, speculative reason.” I know the objection to it: it is said that you can imagine anything you like, and certainly reasons are common that they spring up like brambles. If you are hunting for the Sleeping Beauty of Truth, the difficulty is to cut your way through all this brambles. But I only have to say, “Give your imagination rein”, to be reasonably sure there will be silence for the rest of the hour - nobody dares to speak, because everybody believes there is a psychiatrist knocking around the place waiting to tell them the correct interpretation, or to do the correct thing - which is probably to shut them up in a mental hospital or bring them under restraint in some way or another. The result is that their imaginations atrophy and become what I call “sterile”.
When you have forgotten all that you can about your patient - who will do his best to remind you - then you may have a chance of penetrating this impressive caesura of knowledge, facts*, and a chance of hearing these very small things that are so difficult to hear or see. In other words - falling back on a rather metaphorical use of language - give yourself a chance to observe the growth of a germ of an idea. That germ may look very odd indeed until it has taken shape as an idea that can be articulated. (Pp. 17-8)
*Несколькими страницами ранее У. Бион приводит высказывание Фрейда о “the impressive caesura of the act of birth”. И вообще, у Биона есть книга, которая называется “Two Papers: The Grid and Caesura”.
Putting this very crudely: in an analytic situation there is the analyst, a patient and the third party who is watching - always. So there are three people anyhow; very often there are others, much more shadowy - relatives, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, children. Those “objects” - I use the vague word deliberately - exert an influence. So I am aware of something I call “hearsay evidence”, the evidence I hear said, and I rate that very low indeed. If I try to evaluate it, I could say that the evidence I get from my senses while the patient is with me is worth 99, and all the rest share the remaining 1 between them; it is of such a low order that it is hardly worth bothering with. <…>
Physicians and surgeons are quite used to considering the findings of embryologists who think there are signs in the human body of vestiges of different kinds of life, like an amphibian stage. When it comes to the mind, I think it is something similar; what I want to notice, if possible, are the vestiges, the remnants that have succeeded in surviving in the mind of a particular person. Buried somewhere in all the noise that is brought to me by the senses of sight and hearing, and what the patient is saying, including masses and masses of theories of medicine, psychoanalysis <…>, there is a vestige of something which is quite operative. <…>
So while there are apparently only two bodies in the room, I think we have to go beyond that and detect the third - at least - detecting what it detects. The analyst is being analysed all the time by this third party. After a while, if you are fortunate, even the patient gets the third party brought home to him enough for him to be aware of its existence. (Pp. 19-20)
типа бонус-трек:
André Green drew my attention to this statement: “La réponse est le malheur de la question” [“The answer is the disease, the misfortune, of the question”: Maurice Blanchot (1907-2003), L’Entretien Infiní]. In other words, the answer is the thing that will put a stop to curiosity better than anything. If anybody is at all curious, you can stuff an answer down their throat or into their ears and that will stop them doing any further thinking. (P. 8)
Freud pointed out how important it is not to indulge your imagination, to stick to facts. I entirely agree with that - and am constantly contradicting that. I say to people in a supervision, “Look - when you are with the patient you have to be careful what you say. I am sure you ought to give correct interpretations, but not here - here, I would like you to give your examination a bit of exercise. So, say anything, however silly, idiotic, stupid, unjustified it is. Then, after you have said it, we’ll get onto another point - ‘what is the evidence’ - and so on. But in the meantime, cut out all of that and concentrate on what you imagine - speculative imagination, speculative reason.” I know the objection to it: it is said that you can imagine anything you like, and certainly reasons are common that they spring up like brambles. If you are hunting for the Sleeping Beauty of Truth, the difficulty is to cut your way through all this brambles. But I only have to say, “Give your imagination rein”, to be reasonably sure there will be silence for the rest of the hour - nobody dares to speak, because everybody believes there is a psychiatrist knocking around the place waiting to tell them the correct interpretation, or to do the correct thing - which is probably to shut them up in a mental hospital or bring them under restraint in some way or another. The result is that their imaginations atrophy and become what I call “sterile”.
When you have forgotten all that you can about your patient - who will do his best to remind you - then you may have a chance of penetrating this impressive caesura of knowledge, facts*, and a chance of hearing these very small things that are so difficult to hear or see. In other words - falling back on a rather metaphorical use of language - give yourself a chance to observe the growth of a germ of an idea. That germ may look very odd indeed until it has taken shape as an idea that can be articulated. (Pp. 17-8)
*Несколькими страницами ранее У. Бион приводит высказывание Фрейда о “the impressive caesura of the act of birth”. И вообще, у Биона есть книга, которая называется “Two Papers: The Grid and Caesura”.
Putting this very crudely: in an analytic situation there is the analyst, a patient and the third party who is watching - always. So there are three people anyhow; very often there are others, much more shadowy - relatives, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, children. Those “objects” - I use the vague word deliberately - exert an influence. So I am aware of something I call “hearsay evidence”, the evidence I hear said, and I rate that very low indeed. If I try to evaluate it, I could say that the evidence I get from my senses while the patient is with me is worth 99, and all the rest share the remaining 1 between them; it is of such a low order that it is hardly worth bothering with. <…>
Physicians and surgeons are quite used to considering the findings of embryologists who think there are signs in the human body of vestiges of different kinds of life, like an amphibian stage. When it comes to the mind, I think it is something similar; what I want to notice, if possible, are the vestiges, the remnants that have succeeded in surviving in the mind of a particular person. Buried somewhere in all the noise that is brought to me by the senses of sight and hearing, and what the patient is saying, including masses and masses of theories of medicine, psychoanalysis <…>, there is a vestige of something which is quite operative. <…>
So while there are apparently only two bodies in the room, I think we have to go beyond that and detect the third - at least - detecting what it detects. The analyst is being analysed all the time by this third party. After a while, if you are fortunate, even the patient gets the third party brought home to him enough for him to be aware of its existence. (Pp. 19-20)
типа бонус-трек:
André Green drew my attention to this statement: “La réponse est le malheur de la question” [“The answer is the disease, the misfortune, of the question”: Maurice Blanchot (1907-2003), L’Entretien Infiní]. In other words, the answer is the thing that will put a stop to curiosity better than anything. If anybody is at all curious, you can stuff an answer down their throat or into their ears and that will stop them doing any further thinking. (P. 8)