Transference and Countertransference in Sándor Ferenczi's <Emphasis Type="Italic">Clinical Diary</Emphasis>

This paper examines Ferenczi's contributions to the concepts of transference and countertransference, especially in the Clinical Diary, and the weight of these ideas in our present-day clinical work. Specifically emphasized are the circulation of archaic communication within the session, and the denial of countertransference as a re-traumatazing agent, shown in a clinical vignette.     

Sándor Ferenczi: A Contemporary Introduction,by Alberto Fergusson and Miguel Gutiérrez-Peláez,Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 2022, 125 pp.

The American Journal of Psychoanalysis -     

<Emphasis Type="Bold">W</Emphasis><Emphasis Type="Bold">ang</Emphasis><Emphasis Type="Bold">Fuzhi’s Criticism of Buddhism and Its Limitations</Emphasis>

Wang Fuzhi’s 王夫之 remarks on Buddhism have not been given sufficient attention despite increasing research on him. The few works on this topic either focus on just one aspect of his view of Buddhism or fail to disclose the purpose and uniqueness of his attack of it. This essay analyzes his view of Buddhism comprehensively, in particular his insight into the paradox of Buddhist universal love and his rejection of Buddhist retribution and reincarnation from Confucian righteousness and qi 氣-monism. In addition, it also explores the reason, context, and limitations of his criticism, that is, his reaction to the popular approach of “understanding Confucian classics through learning Buddhism” in the late Ming 明, his response to Zongmi’s 宗密 criticism of Confucian cosmology and human nature, and his misunderstanding of some Buddhist concepts. Yet his criticism is still illuminating to our understanding of the interaction of Confucianism with Buddhism and other religions.     

The Role of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Umwelt</Emphasis> in Husserl’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Aufbau</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Abbau</Emphasis> of the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Natur/Geist</Emphasis> Distinction

In this essay I argue that Husserl’s development of the nineteenth century Natur/Geist distinction is grounded in the intentional correlate between the pre-theoretical natural attitude and environing world (Umwelt). By reconsidering the Natur/Geist distinction through its historical context in the nineteenth century debate between Wilhelm Dilthey and the Neo-Kantians from the Baden or Southwest school, it is possible to understand more clearly Husserl’s appropriations and novel contributions. One of Husserl’s contributions lies in his rigorous thematization and clarification of the constitutive features proper to the natural and human sciences as they arise from the pre-theoretical experience of an environing world. This ordinary lived experience between the lived body and environing world is presupposed by and forms a unity with both Natur and Geist, thereby acting as the unified ground that is inclusive of naturalized Geist and a geistig nature. This unbuilding (Abbau) of the Natur/Geist distinction is necessary, according to Husserl, for the radical clarification of the respective methodologies of the natural and human sciences.     

Elizabeth Severn: The “Evil Genius” of Psychoanalysis,by Arnold William Rachman,Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 2018, 332pp and Confusion of Tongues: A Return to Sándor Ferenczi,by Miguel Gutiérrez-Peláez,Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 2018, 186pp.

The American Journal of Psychoanalysis -