еще из “Attention and Interpretation”
A fallacious but helpful description in A is that the practising analyst must wait for the analytic session to ‘evolve’. He must wait not for the analysand to talk or to be silent or to gesture, or for any other occurrence that is an actual event, but for an evolution to take place so that O becomes manifest in K through the emergence of actual events. Similarly, the reader must disregard what I say until the O of the experience of reading has evolved to a point where the actual events of reading issue in his interpretation of the experience. Too great a regard for what I have written obstructs the process I represent by the terms ‘he becomes the O that is common to himself and myself ’.
W.R. Bion. Attention and Interpretation. Karnac Books, 2007. P. 28.
Полезным, хоть и дезориентирующим описанием в А будет следующее: практикующий аналитик должен дождаться «развертывания» [развития, проявления] аналитической сессии. Он не должен ждать, пока анализанд заговорит, или замолчит, или сделает какой-нибудь жест, - следует дожидаться не фактических событий как таковых, а развития, в результате которого О проявится в К через происшествие фактических событий. И аналогично - читатель не должен придавать значения тому, что я пишу, пока О опыта чтения не развернется до той точки, где фактические события, происходящие в чтении, породят его [читателя] интерпретацию этого опыта. Чрезмерная почтительность к моим словам препятствует процессу, который я представляю формулировкой «он становится О, общим для него и для меня».
Об О, К и пр. немножко было здесь.
The events of an analysis, spread out over what to the analyst are many years, are to A [i.e. patient A, deeply disturbed and extremely intolerant of frustration or pain] but the fragments of a moment dispersed in space. The distance in time separating one statement from another can be taken as a measure of the distance in space of one element from another in which all are contemporary. Thus A says he could buy no ice-cream. Six months later he cannot even buy ice-cream. Three days later he mentions his being too late to buy ice-cream: there was no ice-cream left. Two years later he says he supposes there was no ice-cream. Had I known, when the topic was mentioned first, what I know now I might have noted the time and place of the reference, but I did not know and therefore could not attend to this statement or note it. When I did, it was because of the obtrusive ‘I scream’ theme. It was later still that I grasped the significance of ‘no - I scream’. By this time, I could make only the vaguest reference to previous appearances of the material. As it turned out this difficulty did not appear to matter and my interpretation was taken. Yet I would feel happier if I thought that my gain in experience could lead to earlier observation and use of the material. I now know that a violent attack had been delivered on a relationship in which the link between the two personalities had been ‘I scream’. This had been destroyed and the place of the link ‘I scream’ had been taken by a ‘no - I scream’. The ‘I scream’ link had previously been food, ‘ice-cream’, a ‘breast’, until envy and destructiveness had turned the good breast into an ‘I scream’. In narrative form: he had been linked to his object by a good breast (he liked ice-cream). This he had attacked, possibly bitten it in actuality. The place of the breast as link was then taken by an ‘I scream’. Further attacks made it a ‘no - I scream’. The destruction of the link by explosion now took place in the domain of mental realization. Mental space being infinite, the fragments of the link are dispersed instantaneously over infinite space. The ‘distance’ between one piece and another is measured in time. (1)
(1) The account I have just given is an example of taking Tpβ as my TaO, and by Taα proceeding to Taβ. Taβ is my attempt at a reconstruction of TpO, Tpα, Tpβ. When this degree of private communication has been attained, the problem becomes one of publishing it - formulating it in conversational English that the patient can understand (see Bion, W.R. Transformations. London: Heinemann).
Ibid., p. 13-4.
via leptoptilus; ведет на источник, где еще много такого, в т.ч. угрюмые зайцы, верблюды, жираф, лемуры и многие другие хорошие животные.
Marcus Gheeraerts I
W.R. Bion. Attention and Interpretation. Karnac Books, 2007. P. 28.
Полезным, хоть и дезориентирующим описанием в А будет следующее: практикующий аналитик должен дождаться «развертывания» [развития, проявления] аналитической сессии. Он не должен ждать, пока анализанд заговорит, или замолчит, или сделает какой-нибудь жест, - следует дожидаться не фактических событий как таковых, а развития, в результате которого О проявится в К через происшествие фактических событий. И аналогично - читатель не должен придавать значения тому, что я пишу, пока О опыта чтения не развернется до той точки, где фактические события, происходящие в чтении, породят его [читателя] интерпретацию этого опыта. Чрезмерная почтительность к моим словам препятствует процессу, который я представляю формулировкой «он становится О, общим для него и для меня».
Об О, К и пр. немножко было здесь.
The events of an analysis, spread out over what to the analyst are many years, are to A [i.e. patient A, deeply disturbed and extremely intolerant of frustration or pain] but the fragments of a moment dispersed in space. The distance in time separating one statement from another can be taken as a measure of the distance in space of one element from another in which all are contemporary. Thus A says he could buy no ice-cream. Six months later he cannot even buy ice-cream. Three days later he mentions his being too late to buy ice-cream: there was no ice-cream left. Two years later he says he supposes there was no ice-cream. Had I known, when the topic was mentioned first, what I know now I might have noted the time and place of the reference, but I did not know and therefore could not attend to this statement or note it. When I did, it was because of the obtrusive ‘I scream’ theme. It was later still that I grasped the significance of ‘no - I scream’. By this time, I could make only the vaguest reference to previous appearances of the material. As it turned out this difficulty did not appear to matter and my interpretation was taken. Yet I would feel happier if I thought that my gain in experience could lead to earlier observation and use of the material. I now know that a violent attack had been delivered on a relationship in which the link between the two personalities had been ‘I scream’. This had been destroyed and the place of the link ‘I scream’ had been taken by a ‘no - I scream’. The ‘I scream’ link had previously been food, ‘ice-cream’, a ‘breast’, until envy and destructiveness had turned the good breast into an ‘I scream’. In narrative form: he had been linked to his object by a good breast (he liked ice-cream). This he had attacked, possibly bitten it in actuality. The place of the breast as link was then taken by an ‘I scream’. Further attacks made it a ‘no - I scream’. The destruction of the link by explosion now took place in the domain of mental realization. Mental space being infinite, the fragments of the link are dispersed instantaneously over infinite space. The ‘distance’ between one piece and another is measured in time. (1)
(1) The account I have just given is an example of taking Tpβ as my TaO, and by Taα proceeding to Taβ. Taβ is my attempt at a reconstruction of TpO, Tpα, Tpβ. When this degree of private communication has been attained, the problem becomes one of publishing it - formulating it in conversational English that the patient can understand (see Bion, W.R. Transformations. London: Heinemann).
Ibid., p. 13-4.
via leptoptilus; ведет на источник, где еще много такого, в т.ч. угрюмые зайцы, верблюды, жираф, лемуры и многие другие хорошие животные.
Marcus Gheeraerts I