1991Sept7th

Psychoanalysis: The Magic and The Lie

Diary of a Five Day A Week Analysis

by Esther Altshul Helfgott, Ph.D.

home

table of contents

Sept. 7, 1991 - written as a participant in the Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study's First Instensive Year on Psychoanalytic Theory:

Evaluation: First Class of the Intensive-Year Course*

Since there was not enough time to write an extended evaluation of the Intensive Year Course's first class on Saturday, I am taking the opportunity to make some comments now. As an aside, I suggest that evaluation forms not be combined with attendance records: anonymity is an important feature of the evaluation process.

I appreciated Dr. Pine's lecture for the material he presented and for the organized manner in which he presented it. His division of the material into development of theory and development of person was helpful. Although his voice did not always carry, his speech and language were clear enough for efficient note-taking. The writings he assigned to support his lecture were not only appropriate; they were fun to read and exciting to work with. In all, Dr. Pine gave a good review of his concept of classical analysis and offered the new student of Freud sufficient materials to get started.

I have a few comments to make on the general ambience of the day. Although there was a feeling of warmth among participants and a commonality of purpose, I felt that neither the speaker nor the program director nor the discussion leaders invited students to engage in argument

and debate so that ideas could flourish in a fertile base, one that might, in fact, emulate the analytic setting itself.

I did not find that the five-and-a-half-hour-class-session provided an intellectual milieu where thoughts and notions are tossed around and discussed so they might have the possibility of evolving into Hegelian newness and Freudian discovery. Based on the warm-up course with Charlie Spezzano, my own involvement with psychoanalysis and my reading of psychoanalytic literature, I had expected a level of discourse and a dynamism of exchange that did not take place.

There seemed to be a resistance to discussion and an invalidation of individuality, as exemplified by Dr. Pine's initial remark concerning questions: the group takes precedence over the individual questioner. The statement invited silence; thus, individuality - the essential ingredient of creativity and the essence of Sigmund Freud's achievement - was squelched.

Knowledge needs to be presented in a circular as well as a hierarchical fashion. As analyst and analysand learn from each other, so do student and teacher. If an intersubjective learning dynamic occurs between a teacher and one particular student, that dynamic has the potential for developing between that teacher and other students; and that same dynamic has the potential for developing among the students themselves.

Silence can nurture. It can hold, and it can caress: it can build. It can also wreak havoc - when it is socially imposed. Then, silence breeds violence. Because it leaves space. And that space is not empty. That space does not remain unfilled. It is filled to the brim. Utterly. It is filled with loss - of voices and conflict and ideas that bounce off of, into and in between each other.

When a piano is left unplayed, the consequent silence destroys the music that might have been. In the same way, opinions and questions and assertions - playful or aggressive - are violated when they are discouraged. Their absence does damage to the learning that might have been. And space fills up with loss. Of trust and hope. It is replaced with fear. Of self. Of sound. Of other. In the end, the group loses because it has not grown in its knowledge of itself. It has not formed through dialogue with others and, in turn, with self. So it stagnates like stale water or dried-out weed. Devoid ... of memory.

Psychoanalysis is not static and need not be presented as such. It can unfold and blossom like a flower - if it is allowed to bloom - and if knowledge about its tenets, quirks and mistakes are shared with a respected public. Then, psychoanalysis has the chance to thrive at the grass-roots level, at the institutional level, and the academic. Then, it has a chance to be understood, not as a mysterious or cultic phenomenon only a few people in a secret society have access to, but as a way of living, seeing and reading. As a way of learning. As a process of being in the world.

The Intensive Year Course is an important and valuable representative of psychoanalysis in Seattle. It has provided a wide variety of people the opportunity to study. I would like to see it touch more than just the surface. Go deep, as psychoanalysis, itself, does. And I would like to see it move forward in the spirit of Sigmund Freud's own learning heritage - by valuing the Jewish concept of pilpul, that is, debate, central to Freudian thought and activity.

-Esther Altshu1 He1fgott

Sept. 12,1991

*Originally printed in Memo to Intensive Participants, Karol Marshall, Program Director, 4

unnumbered pages; page 3-4, October 26, 1991.

Primary Source: History of the Development of Psychoanalysis in Seattle, Washington

Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study File,

Author's Archives

Pine

This page was last updated on: July 5, 2005



Psychoanalysis: The Magic and The Lie Diary of a Five Day A Week Analysis by Esther Altshul Helfgott, Ph.D.
			home table of contents


	Sept. 7, 1991 - written as a participant in the Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study's First Instensive Year on Psychoanalytic Theory: Evaluation: First Class of the Intensive-Year Course* Since there was not enough time to write an extended evaluation of the Intensive Year Course's first class on Saturday, I am taking the opportunity to make some comments now. As an aside, I suggest that evaluation forms not be combined with attendance records: anonymity is an important feature of the evaluation process. I appreciated Dr. Pine's lecture for the material he presented and for the organized manner in which he presented it. His division of the material into development of theory and development of person was helpful. Although his voice did not always carry, his speech and language were clear enough for efficient note-taking. The writings he assigned to support his lecture were not only appropriate; they were fun to read and exciting to work with. In all, Dr. Pine gave a good review of his concept of classical analysis and offered the new student of Freud sufficient materials to get started. I have a few comments to make on the general ambience of the day. Although there was a feeling of warmth among participants and a commonality of purpose, I felt that neither the speaker nor the program director nor the discussion leaders invited students to engage in argument and debate so that ideas could flourish in a fertile base, one that might, in fact, emulate the analytic setting itself. I did not find that the five-and-a-half-hour-class-session provided an intellectual milieu where thoughts and notions are tossed around and discussed so they might have the possibility of evolving into Hegelian newness and Freudian discovery. Based on the warm-up course with Charlie Spezzano, my own involvement with psychoanalysis and my reading of psychoanalytic literature, I had expected a level of discourse and a dynamism of exchange that did not take place. There seemed to be a resistance to discussion and an invalidation of individuality, as exemplified by Dr. Pine's initial remark concerning questions: the group takes precedence over the individual questioner. The statement invited silence; thus, individuality - the essential ingredient of creativity and the essence of Sigmund Freud's achievement - was squelched. Knowledge needs to be presented in a circular as well as a hierarchical fashion. As analyst and analysand learn from each other, so do student and teacher. If an intersubjective learning dynamic occurs between a teacher and one particular student, that dynamic has the potential for developing between that teacher and other students; and that same dynamic has the potential for developing among the students themselves. Silence can nurture. It can hold, and it can caress: it can build. It can also wreak havoc - when it is socially imposed. Then, silence breeds violence. Because it leaves space. And that space is not empty. That space does not remain unfilled. It is filled to the brim. Utterly. It is filled with loss - of voices and conflict and ideas that bounce off of, into and in between each other. When a piano is left unplayed, the consequent silence destroys the music that might have been. In the same way, opinions and questions and assertions - playful or aggressive - are violated when they are discouraged. Their absence does damage to the learning that might have been. And space fills up with loss. Of trust and hope. It is replaced with fear. Of self. Of sound. Of other. In the end, the group loses because it has not grown in its knowledge of itself. It has not formed through dialogue with others and, in turn, with self. So it stagnates like stale water or dried-out weed. Devoid ... of memory. Psychoanalysis is not static and need not be presented as such. It can unfold and blossom like a flower - if it is allowed to bloom - and if knowledge about its tenets, quirks and mistakes are shared with a respected public. Then, psychoanalysis has the chance to thrive at the grass-roots level, at the institutional level, and the academic. Then, it has a chance to be understood, not as a mysterious or cultic phenomenon only a few people in a secret society have access to, but as a way of living, seeing and reading. As a way of learning. As a process of being in the world. The Intensive Year Course is an important and valuable representative of psychoanalysis in Seattle. It has provided a wide variety of people the opportunity to study. I would like to see it touch more than just the surface. Go deep, as psychoanalysis, itself, does. And I would like to see it move forward in the spirit of Sigmund Freud's own learning heritage - by valuing the Jewish concept of pilpul, that is, debate, central to Freudian thought and activity. -Esther Altshu1 He1fgott Sept. 12,1991 Originally printed in Memo to Intensive Participants*, Karol Marshall, Program Director, 4 unnumbered pages; page 3-4, October 26, 1991. Primary Source: History of the Development of Psychoanalysis in Seattle, Washington Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study File, Author's Archives Pine



		This page was last updated on: July 5, 2005