Back to Table of Contents
(1) The Complexity of the Field Concept Cassorla (2017) notes that reality can be “simple” or “complex” depending on how the observer views it. Ideas about the concept of field lead observers to pay less attention to facts than to the relationships and influences that exist among them. These relationships are in constant movement and it is this perception that makes a field dynamic. The field is the product of the observer’s capacity to observe and it must be remembered that any observer influences the facts he or she observes. In other words, the observer is part of the field. Any concept of “objective observation” loses its meaning and, for this reason, observers, as participants in the field, must learn to objectify their own subjectivity. Observing the complexity of the concept, one can identify that certain rules determine the functioning of fields. The principles of uncertainty and incompleteness show that observation is always provisional, uncertain, partial and transitory. As something is observed, it changes, not only because it is in constant movement but also because the very process of observation has affected it. But there is no way to determine the degree of influence of the observer over what is observed, or vice-versa. A supposed paralysis of the field can be nothing more than paralysis in the observer’s capacity to move from one vertex of observation to another. Cassorla (2017) identifies the functions that a given analyst imagines for the field and the factors that led the particular psychoanalyst to choose the points of view that determine these functions. This approach lets each analyst use and identify the explicit and implicit theories that have led him or her to belong to a given field. In this vein, Cassorla (2017) proposes the capacity to transform and broaden the symbolic network of thought as it regards the multitude of perspectives (vértices) from which the analyst observes the functions of the field. The transformation of this network can be seen in the growing capacity of the analytic dyad to attribute meaning to their experiences, that is, to think about the conscious and unconscious facts that can be identified in the analytic field. In this way, mental resources develop that allow them to deal with reality and transform it to the benefit of the participants (and, hopefully, of mankind as a whole). The Dreaming Field Among the factors of the field proposed, some phenomena can be identified that are articulated in very complex ways, such as the quality of the links between analysand and analyst, the quality of the emotional experiences resulting from these links, the analyst’s capacity for containing, and the reverie that allows him or her to transform emotional experiences into dreams (waking and nocturnal dreams). Also important is the ability of the analytic dyad to broaden the meanings of the dreams that are dreamed (‘here and now’), the analyst’s capacity to identify and deal with elements that cannot be dreamed, the ability of the dyad to deal with attacks on the processes described, and many other aspects. Cassorla combines the Barangers’ ideas with Bion’s theory of thought (Bion, 1962a, 1962b, 1992, Ferro, 2009), its outcomes and transformations.
(2)
681
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online