You are on page 1of 9

This article was downloaded by: [Adelphi University

On: 22 August 2014, At: 23:57
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Neuropsychoanalysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal
for Psychoanalysis and the Neurosciences
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

Gaps, Barriers, and Splits: The Psychoanalytic Search
for Connection
Arnold Goldberg M.D.



122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1305b, Chicago, IL 60603
Published online: 09 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Arnold Goldberg M.D. (2000) Gaps, Barriers, and Splits: The Psychoanalytic Search for Connection,
Neuropsychoanalysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Psychoanalysis and the Neurosciences, 2:1, 61-68, DOI:
To link to this article:

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://

. the barrier said to explain the separation of unconscious from preconscious and conscious ideation. perhaps a little less so.e. Where once the field worried mainly about a as the unconscious becoming b. even temporary. convenient metaphor that can be displayed on a blackboard just like the gap in which our neurophysiology becomes our psychology? The lifting of repression is then no more than a bit of magic employed to explain why and how a person feels differently or sees things differently. the pursuit seems to be a common and uniform one: that of connection and continuity.D. One very appealing answer . or are in some way connected. of course if the mind is really nothing but the brain-but never mind. no matter where one places one's hat. In each of these visual renditions. the claim is made that there is a logical contradiction which stems from linear thinking. and the split said to constitute the essentials of disavowal and denial. And what of splits. i. the conscious or preconscious. In particular it examines the gap that is said to exist between neurophysiologic and psychologic phenomena. how shall we then think of the barrier between the unconscious and the conscious and preconscious? Is there really a repression barrier. of one person said to be halved like Jekyll and Hyde? Of course there is no real division. M. now it seems equally concerned with the gap between neurophysiology and psychology and. or are perhaps running parallel to one another with no intermediary traffic. a sort of wall. one which reflects the question of whether our mind and our brain are one and the same. that prevents certain forms of thoughts from entering into awareness? Is it actually something composed of vectors of energy that serve as an honest-to-goodness police force? Or is it just a Dr. chair in psychiatry at Rush Medical School where he is a professor of psychiatry. answer to the gap between brain and mind. and he is a training and supervising analyst at the Institute for Psychoanalysis in Chicago." then we enter into a problem area. and Splits: The Psychoanalytic Search for Connection Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 Arnold Goldberg (Chicago) Abstract: This paper explores the pictorial imagery that is often used to explain the mind and mental processes. Once we come to some. and so. many members of that above-noted scholarly legion would hardly agree with this nonscientific idea about magic. Introduction How shall we think of and talk about the mind? If we join the legions of scholars (Searle. Barriers. In addition the paper suggests to the reader that the proper appreciation of these erroneous images might remove present-day futile efforts to pursue solutions based upon these images. 1992) who claim that "the mind is what the brain does. he holds the Cynthia Oudejans Harris. with the split between the two minds of a single person. Such efforts seem to range from a sort of solid commitment to the reality of these varied forms of obstacles to a connection on to a much more romantic version of gaps and barriers and splits as imagery with no possible relevance to reality. but how can one mind be two? How can one not know what he or she is doing? Is that split the same as the gap or the barrier or is it all just a word game that has no standing in the real world? Is all this geometry mere figures of speech or is it something more? These questions come together in the now active and even frenzied pursuit to either close the gap or lift the barrier or heal the split. To be sure. just as when an area of the brain can be said to contain the inhabitants of (say) a social phobia. has its own urgent search for the answer to just how a manages to become b. Psychoanalysis seems not much different from other sciences in its discontent with the lack of a straight line between point a and point b.61 Gaps. However. or perhaps are brought together in a host of other solutions to that peculiar story and struggle of sameness that seems to insist upon difference. Arnold Goldberg is a practicing psychoanalyst in Chicago.

was a product of) the pixel arrangements that it. although I knew that it depended upon (was tells us that the neural engram connects to a verbal label by a process that he terms ecphorization. It was clear to the both of us tain the sort of information that can determine what that this blackout was caused by an electrical failure. or for any specific pathology. while I. that so a relevance to the study of our neurons. and events are actually biochemical events that do not conthe TV set was dead. the repairman studied the inner workings of the tube. certain parts of the brain are active and somebody glues words movie that captured my interest. one that might be a convenient way of handling all The study of the pixels does have a similarity and of the causes of that broken window. In the decision regularly becomes a struggle over levels oclanguage of Peter Munz (1999) our neurons are silent. As Munz says. However.e. I might also be able to draw a similar line. although the result of the game was nowhere able Just as throwing a stone against a window will cause to be fit by me into any kind of law or set of regular it to break. the score of the basketball game or the plot of the . the engram. does not itself contain sufficient emerging from my tube. perhaps more like a psychotherapist. My repairman. so. 8). i. Most of us like to stop at some point in a list of causes while part of a game or show. 1999)? We shall start with the gap. Psychology does and we both knew that the real cause of the televiconsist of words but the language comes from another . For myself I cared only for the contents of the picture. The repairman assured me that he. while for the mind the top is some folk's psychological explanation. while he took thoughts and feelings to one another. For the brain. However. knew how this electrical current allowed the set to deliver a picture. was equally oblivious of the mystery of neural events that Searle (1992) says produce mental the inside. This is a sort of neuroimaging such as seen in positron emission day's focus on neurotransmitters. This allows for a pause which I problem begins to appear when one wishes to connect. the bottom seems to be toarrangement on the inside of the tube. "All PET scans reveal is that at certain times. Sometimes a connection is to the brain with a promise to return to the problem achieved by the device of a complex causal network. No matter how much I joined my repairman in peering at the pixels. Of course the fragility of the window and to come out on my set could be reduced into those pixels and certainly not into a current of electricity. there is a consensus and agreement in terms of communicating our When my television set broke down. words to employ (Munz. It just did not seem that the game neurophysiological states cause. or someone. the language that is clipped onto this mute mood comes little note of the picture save to judge its presence and from a different part of the brain. The lights went out. Arnold Goldberg sion's ability to operate was electricity. the boy who threw the stone are also able to join the ranks of causes along with the other boy who dared At one point. I could not tell information to lead to a verbal label. was intent upon fixing like 'anticipatory fear' to the tomographic ally identified brain event. the repairman reported that the red pixels did seem more prominent during a particular the perpetrator of the deed and on and on. as this can fundamental level or cause. Since we regularly live in a The Real Cause community of like-language users. 6). much like a psychopharmacologist. A tomography (PET). 1999.. too. Suddenly a fuse blew. He bet me that he could tell if it was an exciting game just by studying the pixel others of us prefer either a top-down or bottom-up approach. Is that really a possibility (Sachdev. p. such as social phobia. as expression like 'anticipatory fear' " (p. he had a neat picture of linear casuality. it results in some sort of mood form of what the real cause is claimed to be. or feeling which. for example. I told him that I also could explain how this game of basketball or the movie was placed on the schedule and how it was decided to play it and just what was happening The Gap on my screen. in human beings. However. and caused by. must have language attached to it in order for it to qualify for any specific quality such as curiosity. E. conor the news report or whatever it was that managed sciousness. of ultimate or real causes. Tulving (1983) clarity. The tomography does not contain an the set with no heed of the ongoing game. Indeed the the viewer. 1998). This usually takes the be noted in a PET scan. do we say that the brain and/or its predictive results. casioned by the yearning to reach what is the most Whenever an area of the brain is activated. take to allow me to leave my TV analogy and return to form a straight line.62 Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 to these discontinuities is that of reducing all of those mental phenomena into brain or neuronal connectivity and thereby just erasing them all (Uttal.

This search for laws is reflected in the familiar preoccupation of psychoanalysis. The essence of hermeneutics. The most significant point to recognize is that facts do not compete for causal space (Steward. this fixing of words upon those moods and feelings. cannot tell me that whole story unless and until I have the words and the language. Of course the words that we attach to neural activity or serotonin levels are also able to be changed around. but the verbal attachments are not a lawlike product of the brain. To say that the mind is what the brain does is also to say that the show is what is on TV. since both are also much more. 173).e. That language comes from one's personal life. However. Of course. no part of the brain always means something specific. this starts with the writer of the show. derived from the somewhat murky prose of Martin Heidegger. at least. However. This assignment of meaning. and the fact that neurons NI-NlOO fired was causally relevant to that same fact. 1980.. The language utilized to say that one is happy or sad. but both are also wrong. are all necessary. but the same is true for lots of other points along the process... both that I wouldn't have picked up the umbrella if I hadn't thought it was raining and that I wouldn't have picked it up if neurons NI-NlOO hadn't fired . and indeed of all psychology. [1916] and others have taught us) consists of arbitrary links. we can also leave the troubled search of Searle (1992) who wants the ontology (what Searle calls the "what it . one sees what one is looking for or. how can there be a psychology. we must remember that we live in language and all language is interpretable.e. There is no show without the writer. perhaps erroneously. The study of the inside of my television.63 Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 Gaps. p. Once let loose in a world of sliding signifiers. For the mind it starts with the world in which I live. perplexed or alert. 1953. The mind is elusive. i.. all psychology struggles to nail the words down in laws of regularity and prediction or. and Mary Hesse tells us that: "all science is metaphorical and unformalizable. i. The gap is a will of the wisp. It is just not true that there is no room for multiple layers of causally relevant facts in the causal explanation of a single effect [po 291].. 1997. the analyst knows beforehand what is to be discovered in the unconscious and so searches for it with the aim of getting the patient to see it that way as well. once we leave the linear sequence from neurons to language to consciousness. since interpretation is true of all of our language. The Barrier If the mind is so elusive. as Heidegger says. and this naturally leads to the question of whether the unconscious is real. The very necessary work in understanding neurophysiology will better ascertain the moods and feelings which become attached to the language created by another part of the brain. that the arbitrariness stops at the brain. These are all facts. and Splits part of the brain and (as Saussure. Barriers. a signal being sent from the studio. is a metaphor for handling some psychological material that seems inaccessible.. All explanations which we offer and claim as causal originate from our own particular purposes in providing such specific causal explanations." and that "the logic of science is circular interpretation. there are all sorts of answers to a division between natural science and hermeneutics. There is no gap. is one that offers itself as something to be interpreted and understood. while it seems to live on in the mind. All of these facts rank as causes and none of them erases another. especially one that posits an unconscious? The silence of the neurons enables one to make a claim of some sort for one or another meaning of a particular brain activity. It is surely a fact that electricity. since it is true. like the study of my brain. so that we have sliding signifiers. presumably. upon a definite conceptuality: it is grounded in a fore-conception" (Heidegger. "the interpretation has always already decided . theory in terms of data" (Hesse. Both are right. p. That leads us back to our question about causes and to our effort to close the gap between the inside and the outside of the tube. a script to be read by the actors. is the beginning of the work of interpretation. is clear on one point. but only I can say if it is the color brown or the feeling of joy. rules of generality. p. as to whether it can honestly call itself a science. or is simply an imaginary idea that should be eliminated. re-interpretation and self-correction of data in terms of theory. 261). Thus the people at the electric company claim their amperage as the fundamental cause of my TV operation. but we do feel. For TV. Reducing everything to physics does not make other explanations superfluous. Thus. As Steward so aptly tells us: There is no problem about holding simultaneously both the fact that I believe it was raining was causally relevant to the fact that I picked up an umbrella as I left the house. while the writer of the dramatic show claims his or her own work as the initiator of the process. The PET scan can say what brain area is activated. 141). That question is now best sidestepped. between objective science and social science. a working TV..

Indeed the effort of interpretation must be directed toward understanding." Plato describes how Socrates demonstrates that an uneducated boy has a knowledge of geometry. There is no single way in which one understands oneself. 1909. those that are offensive and/or repugnant and must be kept locked away. the analyst.. and in so far as that other person can be of assistance the neurosis will be curable" (Freud.. Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 The Need for Discourse From Socrates to Freud we have seen the demonstration of one person eliciting information from the other. all of which are worthwhile issues with which to contend. 204). the conscious anticipatory ideas by the help of which he is put in a position to recognize and to grasp the unconscious material. foresight or comprehensibility. do you know that a figure like this is a square?" Yet one may also be led to conclude that the boy did clearly seem to manage to know some things as well as struggle to know others. but there are none who get through without some of it. In "The Meno. . one that acts to prevent the entrance of unconscious ideation to a state of conscious experience. because the supposed lifting of repression seems closer to suggestion than to unearthing.. it is clear that each offered something spoken to allow their subjects to claim complete knowledge. but there is also no unlimited supply of wor kable explanations. This form of assistance is in keeping with the principles of interpretation or of the hermeneutic approach. neither the Ratman nor the young boy could ever hope to know if they had "got it right. A reading of "The Meno" may suggest that Socrates could indeed be supplying the correct answers to the boy as in his question: "Tell me boy. Heidegger tells us that the hermeneutic circle is not a vicious circle nor is it a circle in which any random kinds of knowledge operate (p. No surprise then when the work of one mentor sounds different or strange because a different language is employed. That is a fruitless effort. Socrates and Freud supply the language that they know is needed by their students and patients. Freud seems to be noting that this answer was lying in some sort of state of hibernation-~me that could be undone by way of psychoanalysis. To that we turn to the method of interpretation. we are not therefore able to claim that all explanations are equal." This seems to qualify less as a barrier and more as a case of an absence of language. a subject that besets Searle (1992) and other scholars but rather is an activity that allows an idea to gain recognition. Interpretation unearths and discloses and so allows understanding. This correct response now could emerge. and foreconception or a definite conception. p. 182). without the learned assistance of their mentors. just as Socrates aided such a breakthrough with his young protege.. For there are some patients who need more of such assistance and some who need less. Rather we should focus on the contents of the mind which range from the accessible to the relatively accessible to the inaccessible. and experience is the occasion for the recollection of that knowledge. This may be more fanciful a structure than real. In the case of the Ratman Freud announces: "At this point I told him that he had now produced the answer we were waiting for" (p. Understanding is individual. Our concern here is not with the existence of the unconscious or with the correctness of interpretations of the unconscious or even with the exact contents of the unconscious. and Heidegger claims that interpretation is the development of understanding. This midwifery of ideas is not one of a transformation of neurophysiology into psychology. 143). Freud cautions us that it is not ignorance that his patients suffer from (Freud. Another person must be brought in. Together they do not or should not lead to acknowledging what is already known but rather to a state of developing possibilities. Such a barrier is said to be com- Arnold Goldberg posed of forces that prevent the conscious recognition of these hidden fantasies and memories. Rather it is merely a focus upon the idea of a barrier.64 is?' ') of neurology to match the ontology of the unconscious (p. Although Socrates claimed that his student really knew. information that this other would have insisted was clearly unavailable. knows is there all the time. Although we may be unable to claim the existence of clear laws of this complex field of understanding. . Socrates concludes that one does not require teaching but only needs someone to ask questions. This position of Socrates bears a striking similarity to that of Freud who also recognizes the need for another person when he explains that "In a psychoanalysis the physician always gives his patient . 172). Thus what Socrates and Freud are doing is enabling the boy to understand geometry and the Ratman to understand his feelings and wishes about his father. However. Rather interpretation contains the three components called forehaving or relevance. and Freud held to the conviction that the material of the unconscious is really there. and the way one as a patient learns what somebody else. Plato holds that all of our knowledge is innate.

he responded. Barriers. This difference is intensified by the abhorrence that this respectable man feels toward that periodically appearing other. The barrier of repression is best seen as an inability to understand. No matter the choice. He showed a picture of a chicken claw to the left brain and a snow scene to the right. and he then proceeds 65 to claim that he feels that it is as if it were another person who was involved in that particularly vile business. but disavowal . which situates a little person called "the interpreter" in one side of the brain. If this person proceeds to say that such behavior is relatively unpredictable and beyond his control. 148). If one person interprets something for another person and thereby discloses to that person what is said to be hidden. If a perfectly respectable and responsible man tells you that he periodically engages in some behavior that he (and you) find offensive. When asked why. is. This statement or judgment can be seen either as a matter of fact or a "truth" or as a meaningful state for that person. whose job is to interpret our behavior and our responses. an unsettled issue with answers ranging from completely dismissing the question to those that claim that such an answer can never be achieved (Chalmers. at present. but these are essentially opposites and it is only through discourse that one comes to understanding. He describes an experiment performed on a patient who had a surgical disconnect between the two hemispheres. he is offering you a picture of a person who is vertically split into two. p. Hyde. Continuity seems more a matter of connecting different ways of speaking than of building bridges or removing roadblocks. however. on to the three faces of Eve. perhaps one of even a different variety of a gap. Michael Gazzaniga.25). The barrier seems less useful a possibility. ignorant of the input to the other hemisphere. and Splits 1910. The neurological answer to how something unconscious manages to become conscious.Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 Gaps. rather than an act of removing an obstacle. The beauty of such stories of split brains is marred by the subtle slippage from brain talk. The Vertical Split If one mind is elusive. inasmuch as he usually wishes to disown that person whenever he or she emerges. this act of interpretation takes place by way of language or a statement. In the very apt phrase for all psychoanalysts Heidegger says: "Only he who already understands is able to listen" (p. No such mystery attends the problem of split-brain." that hemisphere. The answer to this lack of unity requires a description of the particular contexts in which these episodes of (for a start) a division in two comes about for us to better examine and explain this phenomenon. The chicken claw goes with the chicken and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed. is forced to deal with only limited information. to even wilder tales of multiple personalities. to pass that mythical barrier. 1998. and the preeminent authority. while the act of interpretation as one of uncovering or opening seems more fitting. Jekyll and Mr. 1996). Heidegger says that there are many intermediary stages between statements of objective things or events and those of "heedful understanding" (p. he expands this image of two parallel persons with the difference between them being significant and unbridgeable. He says that the left brain weaves a story to convince itself and others that it is in full control (Gazzaniga. to experience. then what of two or more of them? From Robert Louis Stevenson's story of Dr. to mind talk. p. The ways of speaking about the mind seem to reach their limit of practicality and usefulness when we study a different form of split: one in which people behave or act differently or are characterized as being like two people. such as discussing the severed corpus callosum. the gap between neurons and ideation seems much like the force preventing unconscious ideas from recognition: both are equally unhelpful and erroneous. Ignorance is not disavowal. The patient was asked to choose from a set of pictures those that correspond to the pictures shown to each hemisphere and one of these patients chose a shovel with the left hand and a chicken with the right. "Oh that's simple. 1998). Only the latter opens up a set of possibilities. there is a mystery and an intrigue to the idea of more than one person residing in one body as well as in a single brain. 154). This homunculus. 225) while Socrates says the same." Gazzaniga explains by saying that this response of explanation is entirely from the left hemisphere which responds with its own sphere of knowledge while ignorant of the snow scene registered in the right hemisphere. whilst the other concerns itself mainly with spatial relations (Gazzaniga. but it can hardly be said to deny or dismiss the activity of the disconnected hemisphere. usually the left. claims that one-half of the brain contains "the interpreter. Thus the necessary ingredient for the disclosing of the unconscious is a relationship: one that enables one to experience. The production of the "answer" of the Ratman is really but a start to exploring what this means for this patient.

They rarely can empathize with the split-off part and they prefer its obliteration rather than its acceptance. To say that psychotherapeutic efforts do change one's PET scan is no different than saying that learning the cello does so as well and. The Barrier Psychoanalysis. however. i. one must somehow be able to make claim to a recognition of a corresponding neurological activity. for some. While one could focus upon discourse in a study of the relationship between conscious and unconscious content and that barrier. Perhaps one aspect of Gazzaniga's research is relevant to our inquiry and that is what he describes as "an intriguing idea. However. We have moved from language to understanding to self-empathy. 524). then we may be witness to both a waste of talent and a weakening of our own conceptual framework.Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 66 and not ignorance is the essence of the vertical split. The same question put to our vertically split patients shows a range of dislike and disowning with the very rare accounting of a tale that may justify or explain its occurrence. Even the most courageous effort to link neurobiology with personality (Depue and Collins. there surely can be no harm in their use as long Arnold Goldberg as one recognizes that they have no grounding in reality. barriers. They usually managed to incorporate it into some story like the one noted above. When one studies such a patient there is usually not a whole person that has been rent in two as much as the presence of a divided set that has never been made whole. neither seems to help with the vertical split.e. some neurobiology has a theoretical model that can be compared to other models with no causal connection to be claimed (p. Once again there seems to be no way to superimpose the splits of our divided patient onto the anatomical disconnection of Gazzaniga's neurologically impaired one. If we focus our attention on this arena. they have different lives as well. one that reflects a disavowal of reality. If. the vertically split patient has no room for it." He asked his patients how they feel about the right hemisphere doing things beyond their control. while they surely are not ignorant of it. This struggle over the proper placement of the analytic or therapeutic relationship leads to extreme positions such as those that claim the relationship itself to be curative in statements such as "the patient internalized the relationship with the therapist and thereby was improved" to others that explain reactions of the analyst as due to projective identification from the patient and thereby . One does not so much heal a split. each sector may feel that way about the other. While the split-brain patient has no recognition of that alien part of himself. and one could see the silence of the neurons as a cause for a dismissal of the search to close the gap between neurology and psychology. In its simplest form. Brains of depressed people have different scans before and after treatment but. as we have said. these facts should not compete with one another. founded upon a concept of the unconscious. one must be very cautious in claiming a causal link since. This feature of dislike is an essential one in evaluating treatment. The first position minimizes the relationship while the second tends to make it everything. The split that seems to be in the mind of a Jekyll and Hyde is misnamed. our patients do not understand their parallel other. quite obviously. most cogently. Our respectable patient both knows and can speak about his unhappy parallelism. Many depressed patients after treatment also wear brighter clothing but correlations are not regularly causal. The Gap If one aims to elicit changes in the brain by a psychotherapeutic approach. a figure of speech suggesting an injury. Nor should we equate causes with correlations.. at times. Certainly. I should like to briefly point out some of the inherent dangers that lie behind each of these images all the while recognizing that these images are useful as well. The problem and the solution is one of integration. and splits are matters of mere imagery. the lure of such imagery leads many to pursue a course of study and research that is directed along these conceptual lines. need have no relation to an individual's history. so do pharmacologic agents. and might even have different PET scans while living in one or the other. Discussion If gaps. one that is simply beyond any presently known scientific capacity. has moved from the analyst as midwife to the analyst as coauthor of a narrative that. 1999) is presented primarily as a corollary way of explanation. we usually can highlight a striking feature of our patients that is far afield from those of Gazzaniga' s. and this factor seems to best explain the presence and persistence of the vertical split. as much as unify a disparate self: a self in need of self-understanding and/or self-empathy.

Jekyll and so it is with most therapists who join with their patients in condemning their misdeeds. (1980). For the most part. (1909). The evocative power of enactments. We would presume that Einstein knew just how far his theory could take him and just when it became of no further 67 use. . The true connection for psychoanalysis is neither to close the gap. over time. Rather the vertically split patient needs to. In each of these the unconscious is lost. Hesse. enable borders and boundaries to be built and maintained. 1983. Standard Edition. The Mind's Past." then it may be possible to see that neither dismissal of the other or embracing it is the answer. trans. when Heisenberg once defended his interpretation of quantum mechanics to Einstein by pointing out that he was simply using Einstein's own method as it had been practiced in the Special Theory. and Splits Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 try to reclaim the hallowed neutrality of the analyst. However. M. Einstein replied: "Yes.(1910). The Conscious Mind. Freud. 1985. More to the point is that such uses of models and theories can be as inhibiting as they are helpful. The split is best seen as a failure to integrate rather than an activity of separateness. London: Hogarth Press. NY: State University of New York Press. like the splits in ourselves. Assn. Behavioral and Brain Science. (1998). (1991). NJ: Aronson. Stambaugh. nor breach the barrier nor heal the split. New York: Oxford University Press. J. 11:219-227. To base everything upon the relationship moves psychoanalysis to an aspect of social interaction and so ultimately to a diminution of the concept of transference even to the point of using a new lexicon to consider it (Stolorow and Atwood. (1996). Bloomington. 22:491-569. the localized points of study do influence one another without being able to be captured by the overarching theory. Northvale. Being and Time. P. Heidegger. it is rather to be open to the world. one fails to help a vertically split patient until and unless one has already allowed that stranger into one's own house. Amer. M. To persistently remove the analyst from the dialectic makes for an isolation of certain events as enactments (Chused. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10:151-318. IN: Indiana University Press. The difference may be subtle. It is not a place nor a structure. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. T. p. but it becomes striking in analysts and therapists who are unable to see their own complicity in either encouraging or disliking the wayward other. S. 1992). Depue. but it is nonsense all the same" (MuDZ. 1962). Relationships are mere social phenomena without it. Chused. 39:615-639. & Collins. R. 1957. Standard Edition. 1991) as if there could possibly be times in a treatment when the unconscious could operate or express itself without the other. (1962).1. goals. Chalmers. integrate that other set of ambitions. References Bion. if one takes the stand that there really is "a stranger beside me. The inaccessibility of the unconscious is a fundamental feature of psychoanalysis. As in any complex system. since that perception tends to consider the parallel self as alien and as nothing that is a part of us. We do best to remember Freud's admonition beginning "Another person must be brought in. and treating it as such robs it of its essence and us of its value." The Split Mr. 4). "Wild" analysis. Albany. (1953). Barriers. This regularly leads to a further isolation of the parallel self which may disappear from the conversation and/or be suppressed in a mutual effort of both patient and analyst. 1955. while psychoanalysis is itself handicapped by mystifying it to a level of magical exchanges (Bion. that may be true. and values into a new and unified self. W. Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis. Neurobiology is an essential field to enrich the study of psychology and depth-psychology.Gaps. The splits in our patients. 1. . S.. Learning from Experience. Conclusion In the 1920s. What one author claimed this remark to mean was that Einstein did not believe in what he was practicing even while practicing it. P. This neurobiology is not a replacement nor could or should it be reduced to psychology. Gazzaniga. facilitation of incentive motivation and extroversion... London: Hogarth Press. M. (1999). Seeing a split as real may inhibit noting one's own collusion in its persistence. Psychoanal. A. Revolution and Reconstruction in the Philosophy of Science. It does so by influencing what we can attribute to a person's potential and limitations. Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine. P. Hyde was heartily disliked by Dr. J.

(1983). Tulving. trans. Neuropsychiatry. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sachdev. Toward a New Behaviorism. (1999). H. The Intersubjective Foundations of Psychological Life. G. 122 S. R. M. Plato (1892). 11:274-279. Hillsdale. trans. 1959. New York: Oxford University Press. R. Cambridge. Elements of Episodic Memory. W. NJ: Analytic Press. Contexts of Being. Steward. The Dialogues of Plato. No. W. Saussure. Clin. The Case Against Perceptual Reductionism. Our Knowledge of the Growth of Knowledge.2. P. Arnold Goldberg Stolorow. Neurosci. (1992). MA: MIT Press. New York: Oxford University Press. (1992). IL 60603 . Oxford Philosophical Monographs. Jowett. Is reduction of mental phenomena an attainable goal? J. & Atwood. J. Searle. E. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.68 Downloaded by [Adelphi University] at 23:57 22 August 2014 Munz. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Oxford Psychology Series. Baker. Arnold Goldberg. Course in General Linguistics. P.. (1997). The Ontology of Mind. The Rediscovery of the Mind. (1985). Uttal.D. F. De (1916). New York: Random House. Michigan Avenue Suite l30Sb Chicago. R. B. (1998). 1963.