Burghölzli Zurich, 11. IV. 07.
Thank you for your long letter so kind! I just worry that you do me surestimiez, me and my strength. Certainly, with your help, I've looked at a certain depth, but I am still very far from seeing clearly. I still feel that they have made progress within quite essential since I personally made your acquaintance, because I feel that we can never fully understand your science if you do not know your person. Where so many things we are unclear, we who are distant, only faith can help us; faith or the best and most effective seems to be the knowledge of your personality. Also my visit to Vienna was it for me a true confirmation.
An excellent analysis of dementia praecox that I made recently reminded me of many things that we discussed together. I would now like to submit a question that concerns me particularly : the architecture of the case I mentioned was quite ” hysteriform “, so that during the analysis I completely lost consciousness speak with a dem. praec. The report (transfer) was excellent, so that 1 time I found the whole story : nothing sexual events until the sixth year, all very typical. The patient also accepted the position trans- (1) with great affect. The patient had acquired during the analysis a clear vision of the nature and genesis of the disease, so one might expect a significant improvement. The next, there was still nothing. It could still come. Until then everything is as in hysteria. But here : the patient has no associations "hysterical". It reacts quite superficially, reaction time was shorter than I've ever seen. This means that the words do not break up pacemakers affectivity, which always occurs in hysteria. You say : not object libido, but autoerotism. Complexes were strongly cleaved during the experiment, so that the affects were not awakened. But in the analysis was the inverse; complex pieces came in waves, without resistors. In this situation, one would expect that the words stimulators also reach considerably complex, but they did not. This gives me the impression that in dem. praec. holds less complex personality based stimuli assignable in hysteria, so that it produces a much smaller "working through" [Working off] personality by the complex. In hysteria, a synthesis still occurs between the complex and the overall personality. In d. pr., complexes seem to blend in a way only approximate, in any case less than hysteria and especially that in the normal. Complexes are isolated somehow. You say that the complexes become autoerotic and have no libido in themselves. But where did it come? In the deli-ing toxic (alcohol, etc.), we see something simi-lar : we find fragments of complexes involved in elementary hallucinations, based on stimuli of neurites, which gives a mixed composite unanalyzable, I've never been able to elucidate (psychologically!). In such states, everyday things indifferent, pieces of complex, sensory stimuli endogenous, etc., appear to level, and meaningful constellation is totally lacking. Is there an analogy here with the isolation of the complex dem. praec.? It would naturally represent the effect of toxins in dem. praec. as only very slight. But where does the regression in auto-erotic? Auto-eroticism is it not something infantile? and yet the child is so totally different thing from the. pr. In examinations galvanometer 2 I even saw that setting affects the cleavage of. pr. went so far as strong stimuli physical had no influence, whereas psychological stimuli caused yet affect. So, analysis and the transfer is made perfectly, it happens that absolutely no personality as such be revolutionized, as in hysteria. In general, it nothing happens at all, patients have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, they continue to suffer quietly. It is as if their personality was split, providing the isolated complexes, that influence longer mutually. I would be very grateful if I could hear your opinion on it.
You will be interested to learn that the International Congress of Amsterdam this year has asked me to make a presentation on "Modern theories of hysteria '. The second speaker is Aschaffenburg! I will stick to your course only theory. The discussion will be in any way distressing, I already feel. A[schaffenburg) recently wrote me that it was still nothing understood.
I have now read through the book of Rank 3. It seems to me that there are some very good ideas in it, but I do not understand everything. But I read the thing again later.
Bleuler has now agreed about. 70 % the libido theory, after that I have demonstrated on several cases. Its resistance is now heading mainly against the word. Its negative oscillation appears to have been temporary, on the occasion of my visit to Vienna. Bl[euler] was a bachelor for a long time to cool completely and thus much work already accomplished in his life discharge. Also his unconscious has it become strong and healthy influence. You still support her courageous, although from time to time to have some mental reservations. That Bl[euler] recognized as just, he will not let go. It has the virtues Swiss national to an unusual degree.
I am naturally extremely grateful for giving me your ideas of the. pr., as I am of any stimulation that comes from you.
Bezzola is a damned stubborn, which has yet to compensate for a situation in life extremely unpleasant. This is why he feels entitled to enrich themselves with the crumbs which fall from the table of the Lord. This is a collector details, who lack any clear overview; also a man right, the unconscious, it is true, is still heavily in its claws. His work has me horribly upset.
My wife and I have learned with great regret your wife's illness and wish him a speedy recovery my heart.
Get the best greetings
your grateful and devoted
1. Jung dit ici Transposition ; he uses this time as the terms Report, cf. 2 J, n. 5 and 3 F (addition) and Transmission so apparently synonymous, before limited to Transmission. Cf. 27 F, the text before n. 9.
2. Jung is the author of three essays in English on this topic : « On Psychophysical Relations of the Associative Experiment », Journal of Abnormal Psychology, flight. I, 1907; « Psychophysical Investigations with the
Galvanometer and Pneumograph in Normal and Insane Individuals » (avec Frederick W. Paterson), Brain, flight. XXX, July 1907; et « Further Investigations of the Galvanic Phenomenon and Respiration in Normal and Insane Individuals » (with Charles Ricksher), Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, flight. II, 110 5, December 1907-January 1908. Texts in German G.W., 2. ["On psychophysical relations of association experience.; "Psychophysical Research with the galvanometer and pneumograph in normal individuals and insane"; "New research on the phenomenon galvanic and respiration in normal and insane individuals."]
3. The artist [The artist], Vienna 1907. Cf. 17 J, n.1.