Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To zoom in or out on PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Are you having difficulty reading an article due its font size? In order to make the content on PEP-Web larger (zoom in), press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the plus sign (+). Press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the minus sign (-) to make the content smaller (zoom out). To go back to 100% size (normal size), press Ctrl (⌘Command on the Mac) + 0 (the number 0).

Another way on Windows: Hold the Ctrl key and scroll the mouse wheel up or down to zoom in and out (respectively) of the webpage. Laptop users may use two fingers and separate them or bring them together while pressing the mouse track pad.

Safari users: You can also improve the readability of you browser when using Safari, with the Reader Mode: Go to PEP-Web. Right-click the URL box and select Settings for This Website, or go to Safari > Settings for This Website. A large pop-up will appear underneath the URL box. Look for the header that reads, “When visiting this website.” If you want Reader mode to always work on this site, check the box for “Use Reader when available.”

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Fordham, M. Samuels, A. (1983). Correspondence. J. Anal. Psychol., 28(4):377-379.

(1983). Journal of Analytical Psychology, 28(4):377-379

Correspondence

Michael Fordham and Andrew Samuels

May I Comment on the discussion of Redfearn's paper, ‘Ego and self: terminology’ which appeared in this journal (Vol. 28, 2)?

If Schwartz-Salant wants to assert that there is a spirit of Jung that Redfearn violates we can consider whether that is true and whether the violation is worthwhile or not. First of all, Jung claimed that analytical psychology is a science and Redfearn's procedure could not be called unscientific. Also, to separate ego from self is to follow Jung, who did just that when he wrote a separate definition of the self for the Collected Works, while earlier editions of Psychological Types did not contain one.

Jacoby's contribution is of a different and more reflective kind. I think that he is right to find that ‘one can not see Kohut's self as simply analogous with the Jungian concept of the ego’. That was my impression when I took part in a symposium on the self in San Francisco when a Kohutian psychoanalyst was also speaking.

The importance of Schwartz-Salant's contribution is that he uses symbolic forms which express the self, whereas Redfearn seeks to define the self clearly. To do so he uses a comparative method which one could call horizontal. I cannot find that he is muddled.

I am struck by the neglect, in the discussion, of Jung's distinction between directed and undirected thinking (primary and secondary process or diacritic and metaphorical-symbolic thinking in psychoanalysis). Definition belongs to the former and does not seek to express the self, but by setting boundaries to the meaning of words is essentially excluding.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.