Reed G S
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1995;43(3):713-39. doi: 10.1177/000306519504300303.
This paper proposes that clinical psychoanalysis requires distinctions for its practice that tend to be blurred by a less than careful importation of contemporary philosophical concepts. One such distinction is that between narration and the event narrated; another, that between meaning seen as absolutely relative and meaning understood as hierarchical. The first distinction identifies present experience as formed by a narrative strategy arrived at in the past. The second distinction allows pathology to be described as arrests or limitations in the ability to construe meaning. This perspective has implications for a number of current debates, among them those concerning the roles of interpretation and reconstruction. A clinical illustration involving the reconstruction of a disavowed perception and relying on the aforementioned distinctions is presented.
本文提出,临床精神分析在其实践中需要做出一些区分,而当代哲学概念若未经审慎引入,往往会模糊这些区分。其中一个区分是叙述与所叙述事件之间的区分;另一个区分是被视为绝对相对的意义与被理解为具有层级性的意义之间的区分。第一个区分将当下的体验界定为由过去达成的一种叙事策略所构成。第二个区分使病理学能够被描述为在建构意义能力方面的停滞或局限。这一观点对当前的一些争论具有启示意义,其中包括那些关于解释与重构作用的争论。本文给出了一个临床实例,该实例涉及对一种被否认的感知的重构,并依赖于上述区分。