KNOWING: IMAGO AND OBJECT RELATIONS
Click below for our previous article:
PARALLELS WITH OTHER THERAPEUTIC MODELS
Knowing:
Imago and Object Relations
Stephen R. Plumlee,
M.S., M. Div.
Private Practice, Sarasota, Florida During
the Imago Enrichment Day (October 16, 2000) at the Tenth Annual
Conference of the Association for Imago Therapy, Dearborn,
Michigan, Helen LaKelly Hunt and Harville Hendrix presented the
conferees with the notion of two types of knowing:
connected knowing and separate knowing. The two are
distinct in the sense that connected knowing is based on
empathy, identification, mutuality, and a sense of oneness, in
contrast to separate knowing, which is analytical, abstract,
logical, and differentiated. The powerful impact of this
view evoked a lively discussion, especially in the focus
subgroups, whose members developed some stimulating ideas about
different ways of knowing and how these ways interact. What
is the relationship of knowing to the human personality, as
understood by Imago theory? Are there different types of
knowing? Is connected knowing truly in contrast to
separate knowing, or is connected knowing opposed to
disconnectedness and, therefore, unknowing? Is knowing
developed in the process of establishing the imago, or does it
occur as part of the neurological given of the human person? Theories
about Knowing Theory of
knowing, epistemology, is most often thought of as a branch of
philosophy. When psychologists comment on this activity of
the mind, they often emphasize that all knowing is actually
apperception. It soon becomes clear, as one reflects on
these questions, that the issue is larger than a definition of
knowing and the description of types of knowing. Indeed,
the matter of knowing is directly seated in that of being,
because how a person experiences what and who he is comprises
the very source of his knowing. Thus, the matter is a core
one for Imago theory: the Imago perspective holds that the
who-ness and what-ness of personal experience is both the
product of relationship and the shaper of relationships. Transformational
Stage There are indeed
different types of knowing, but what are they? It is
helpful to approach this question from a developmental
perspective. In some formulations of infant life, the baby
lives in a state of symbiosis with his mother. This
conception indicates that the neonate experiences life as if he
and the mother were one, as though the universe consists only of
himself, with the mother a merged part of his being.
According to this view, the baby has no perception of himself as
a self or as a subject.
While it undoubtedly
is true that the infant does not yet have enough neurological
development to be self-or other-conscious, he does in fact
experience the presence of the mother figure as the one from
whom comes gratification as well as frustration of needs and
desires. When the baby's needs for nurturance, warmth, and
safety are met, he is satisfied, although he is not conscious of
the presence of a satisfying person. Likewise, when his
wishes or needs are not fulfilled by the mothering presence, the
child is forced to accommodate. Perhaps he cries until the
message is received and the need granted. Perhaps he has
to endure his discomfort or displeasure; perhaps he learns to
soothe himself with sucking fingers or toes and falling asleep.
Whatever the response
to gratification and frustration, the infant is by necessity
being transformed, or rather is transforming himself, adapting
his demands to what can be expected, inventing new skills to
communicate his wants, and perhaps giving up in despair.
When this relationship between maternal caregiver and infant
goes well, it has the quality of what Winnicott (1965) called a
"facilitating environment," with the right balance of
care and withholding to allow the infant to unfold his
capacities to meet changing expectations. As Paula Heimann
(1956) described it, the mother serves as a "supplementary
ego" that provides a substitute set of unconscious mental
structures for effectual interaction with the environment.
Thus she, as the major component of the infant's environment,
relates to him to accommodate and assimilate the rest of the
environment so that the baby can continue his
self-transformation.
The key concept here
is relationship, which is crucial to Imago theory. We say
that the infant's first task is to attach to experience being
wanted, to experience consistent warmth and requisite nurture
while not getting lost in a sea of undifferentiated
availability. Because the infant is not yet capable of
differentiating an object as distinct from himself, he
experiences the maternal figure as a "process linked to the
infant's being and alterations in his being" (Bollas, 1987,
p. 4). This maternal figure might thus be called a
"transformational object" that is experientially
identified by the infant with the processes that alter his
experience of himself. Although the infant cannot yet
think consciously of the mother is a distinct relational object,
he nonetheless is having a subject-object relationship with
her. His capacities for thought have not yet matured, but
he is already knowing. He is beginning to carry knowledge
that is the unthought known, and he develops this knowledge as a
result of the peculiar relationship he has with his
mother. From her response to him, he learns the rules of
life within the context of the universe he shares with her,
although he is not yet able to know that he knows. His
native physical and mental capacities, his unique combination of
energies, strengths, and characteristic temperament gradually
shape themselves to the environment mediated by his caregivers
as he meanwhile shapes their behavior towards himself. He
knows increasingly, but only through the dialectic of his
relationship. What he knows conceptually is who the baby
is, and what he knows is derived from the constant ebb and flow
of physical and psychic energy between himself and his
caretaker. His knowing cannot be solely though the
identification and oneness, because he already "knows"
that his facilitating environment is not identical with
himself. However, he also cannot know in a thoroughly
analytical and separated way, for he has not yet developed a
consciousness of his own separateness.
This is the state of
pre-language, and the verbal discourse that one has with oneself
and others is essential for the process of knowing.
That is, the capacity to use symbolic encapsulations of one's
thoughts and experiences is necessary for knowledge to be
formulated. Indeed, the acquisition of language is the
most significant transformation that takes place in the infant's
alteration of the experience of himself. Thus, the
pre-verbal and pre-differentiated child continues to use bodily
movements, cries, becomes silent, and even mimes others to make
the other experience what he himself experiences. This can
be seen, for example, in the behavior of autistic children. Transitional
Stage But as the infant
enters into his second year, he starts to differentiate himself
from his mothering caregiver. He becomes increasingly
aware of her as more than a transformational process; she
becomes a discrete object in herself, and so his way of knowing
changes also. Prior to this, knowing has been principally
in the form of bodily memories outside of conscious mental
operations. Through them, the child has a knowing of which
he is not aware. As he continues his development, he
begins to engage in more individuated activity, distinct from
that which he has with his mother. He separates from her
to explore a wider circle of activity, both mental and physical;
he becomes increasingly aware that he has experiences that she
does not. His distinctiveness as a person becomes more
apparent to himself and to his mother.
This shift of focus
away from total involvement with the maternal (and to some
extent the paternal) figure does not mean total separateness,
however. Even while the child is coming to know
consciously and distinctly, he continues to need the reassurance
of the provider of needs, to return for brief periods of visual,
vocal, and physical reintegration with her. To a very
large degree, she is still the source of safety, particularly as
the child experiences moments of pain. From her he finds
healing and solace as well as meaning, as he returns to recount
his unique experiences with the unconscious belief that she
understands the significance of what he recounts.
This is the stage of
development at which relationship with the father and other
objects becomes important. The father provides him with
another source of derivation of knowledge, of both himself
as he identifies with his father's values, beliefs, and foci of
attention, and of the father as a separate person with whom he
interacts, conscious of their differences. This shift in
the principles of relationship applies also to a widening circle
of other persons, including other adults, age mates, and play
companions.
During this period as
in all other developmental stages, the infant continues to
create the meaning of the behavior of those he is related with,
meaning that is about himself and about the environment.
Earlier, this psychic content was known in a pre-cognitive way
but was held with an absoluteness of which the child was not
aware. This was not the primary repression of knowledge
that could not be held in consciousness because of the threat of
its meaning; rather, the infant was not developmentally
ready for conscious thought. Now, in the stage of
separation and individuation, he can assimilate information
borne by stimuli, consciously interpret it, and either retain it
in forms that are recognizable to him or repress it if its
content floods him with more knowledge than he can sustain or if
it otherwise threatens him. The infant gradually alters
his relationships with objects, now shifting from the process of
experiencing the transformation to articulating it. To
replace the disappearing transformational object, he can
symbolically enact the illusion of his own omnipotence and his
own creativity. His new idiom expresses his
differentiation symbolically, and he can even play with the
grandiose idea that he could eliminate the maternal object and
she would nonetheless survive. The transition is to an era
of playing with ideas, of fantasies which brilliantly portray
the infant's outgrowing of the maternal matrix, his relief and
rage at that loss, and his illusory belief in his own power as
he discovers his prowess in his individuated ego strengths.
In this phase,
knowing takes on a meaning quite different from the
transformational process. The infant now has multiple
objects with which to interact. He still performs the
operation of internalizing his perceptions of objects, the
meaning of their behavior, especially towards him, and the laws
of life that he assimilates from them. This is the period
of socialization, when the young child makes the transition away
from knowing what will help him shape his own being and that of
the transformation-self. Now he works at knowing what form
he must take to be acceptable to the larger community. No
longer is it enough to be aware of how to sustain life-giving
communion with one object, for now there are an increasing
number of them, each with its own peculiar expectations and
beliefs. Knowing becomes a more self-conscious act, an
awareness of an experience that is different from oneself and is
distally observable. This separate object, of course, is
incorporated internally, with definition and value bestowed upon
it by the subject, who symbolizes his knowledge through fantasy
and language. He gives word to what he has made a part of
himself mentally; he assigns relational value to it and
develops a set of beliefs pertinent to that relationship.
The fertility of
meaning attributed to the relationship adds still another layer
to the deposit of memories and unconscious expectations that
make up the imago. At least three relationships have been
observed and experienced by the child, and the preconceptual and
repressed knowledge of these three make up the content of the
imago. Most powerful, of course, is the relationship of
the parental caretakers to the child. The experiences on
which that knowledge has been built begin very early in the
infant's prenatal period and extend into the later years of
childhood. The elements of that knowing, which is unknown,
are a compound of the unthought and of that which was thought
but repressed. Second, and profoundly influential in the
development of the imago, is the relationship between (or among)
the caretakers themselves, which has a strong impact on the
infant who is within their field of interaction. The
effects of this relationship are also powerful for the
intra-uterine infant via direct physical impact on the child who
is contained within the mother's body, as well as through her
neural muscular, and hormonal responses to the events of the
relationship. Of course, the child is within the range of
the parents' interactions with each other throughout childhood,
and because of this he develops an enormous treasury of
expectations and beliefs about the nature of intimate
relationship. Finally, and also highly important, is the
relationship each caretaker has with himself or herself.
The extent to which that relationship is respectful or
disrespectful of the self, sustaining or destructive, energized
or defeated, has a lasting effect on the unthought known of the
child's relationship with himself. This knowing may be
repressed due to shame, sadness, or contempt, but the adult
child may be dreadfully conscious of it.
The amalgam that is
the imago, therefore, is a complicated component of the mental
apparatus. Partly conscious but to a large degree
preconscious and unconscious, it contains numerous bytes of
knowledge. Some are certainties but have never become
differentiated thoughts; others are the residue of direct
bodily experiences recorded permanently, like a dent made in the
earth by a falling meteor. Still others result from distal
observations and are filed away, to be later referred to with
unconscious automaticity. Knowing
Is Holistic Whatever
the source of an individual element in the imago, the element is
the result of knowing that was derived from pre-conceptual
experience, when the transformational object is the intimate
influence in development (a process that continues throughout
life but is superseded in importance in successively later
stages of development), and from separate knowing, when the
relational objects are clearly known as other. Each piece
of knowing is related to every other piece, so that finally, all
knowing is both connected and separate. Without a sense of
oneness, shared reality, and corporate meaning, there is no
relationship from which to derive knowing. Without
differentiation, there is not an apperceived other to know.
Fairbairn (1952)
demonstrated that libidinal yearnings impel one to fulfill them,
but satisfying them is not the end in itself; they are
tools to attain the ultimate goal, relationship with the
other. Fairbairn's dictum, "The ultimate goal of
libido is the object" (p. 4), applies here. The
lifelong process of attaining this goal of relationship with the
other, starting from the earliest moments of conception, causes
the person to know what will facilitate that relationship, what
will destroy it, and indeed, how the relationship can destroy
the self. From the beginning, the newly conceived infant
has some awareness of the otherness of the other, even when it
is the transformational object that is essential for life
itself. For the person, there is never a point of absolute
psychic symbiosis. On the other hand, total
differentiation is impossible, for then there is no knowing of
the other with whom to relate. Knowing, essential for
sustaining the life of the self, is at every stage of life an
imago experience, connected and separate, differentiated and
undifferentiated, held in a holistic tension. Without that
tension vitale, the personal organism would disappear by
either undifferentiated absorption or total isolation. In
either case, there would be no imago, the treasury of
knowing; without the imago, there can be no knowing, and
without knowing, there can be no relationship, which is the
source of the self. Case
Illustration Karen and
Gregory entered couples therapy about four years ago and have
been in treatment weekly since then. When they first
started therapy Greg was 42 years old. He had a 13-year
old daughter from his first marriage. Greg had no
education beyond high school, but he was a brilliant inventor
and craftsman. His wife, Karen, an emergency-room
physician, was 39. This was her first marriage.
After four years of marriage, the couple had no children. Personal
Background
Greg is a fraternal twin; he and his twin sister have one
older sibling. Greg and his twin were born
prematurely; Greg was sickly, and his life hung in the
balance many times during his infancy. When he was three
years old, Greg's father committed suicide. Greg's view of
his upbringing was that he was expected to be the replacement
for his father and to take care of his mother and sisters.
Simultaneously, has was viewed as insufficient and unreliable
because he was male.
Karen is the oldest
of three siblings; she has two younger brothers. Her
mother was a paranoid schizophrenic who attacked her, sometimes
physically, and emotionally withheld from her. Karen's
father was a successful professional man who dealt with is
psychotic wife by working long hours and on weekends. He
left Karen with the responsibility of mollifying and later
taking care of the mother; the younger brothers were left
to raise themselves. Karen became a doctor because her
father directed her to that profession. Presenting
Problems
When Karen and Greg started therapy, they were constantly
bickering, engaging in mutual criticism, sarcastic attacks, and
defensive counterattacks. Greg knew that his wife
despised him, that no matter what he tried to do, it would be
found insufficient, and that it was only a matter of time before
she would discard him as useless. Karen knew that
she was intellectually inferior and valuable to Greg only as a
source of steady income, which allowed Greg to do his creative
work. She was resentful, bitter, and outraged about his
long hours in his workshop. She was aware that her
suspicious outlook and contempt for her patients and other
workers at the hospital made her husband want to avoid her,
especially since it appeared that she had more love for her dogs
than for him. Greg was convinced that, because he was a
man, his wife expected him to solve her problems, including that
of making a living. However, he produced almost no income,
and what he did bring in was earmarked for child support.
Karen found herself financially supporting the two of them.
Their sexual
relationship was in a shamble. Each partner claimed to
find the other attractive, but they had sex only
occasionally. Greg was convinced that Karen found his
lovemaking insufficient and that she would devour him if he did
not keep a distance. In reality, she lived a life of such
emotional exhaustion and hostility that she seldom responded to
his infrequent overtures, and then only for physical
gratification. Neither one had a spiritual practice;
Greg had been raised without one and thus seemed
indifferent; Karen reacted negatively to the strictures of
her childhood religion, which she resented because it was the
reason why her father kept himself and his children chained to
their psychotic mother.
Ostensibly a
successful couple consisting of a brilliantly creative husband
and a highly-achieved wife, they were psychological neonates
whose mothers had been preoccupied with themselves.
Karen's mother had been trapped in psychotic incompetence and
vicious competition with her same-six infant; Greg's
mother had identified with her daughters and was resentful of
both the caretaker who had abandoned her in a catastrophic exit,
suicide, and of the child who was made in his image. Course
of Therapy
The early treatment of this couple can be seen as an
articulation of their respective knowing. Karen
experienced constant frustration of her desire for affiliation
with a responsive object, in this case, Greg. It was the
task of the therapy to allow her to verbalize her pre-verbal
anxiety. Her communications consisted of attacks on Greg
for his failure to provide her with a matrix in which she could
experience herself in a relaxed, non-vigilant way. Gregory
was certain, in ways that he never could have conceptualized,
that his undifferentiated self would be consumed by Karen's
demands and that he could not relate to her as an object that
would help him define himself. His solution was to
abjectly admit all his failures, which proved that it was
hopeless for him to become functionally interactive in the
relationship. Simultaneously, he would present criticisms
of Karen that were provocative but so highly intellectualized as
to be incomprehensible. My countertransference included
rage, exhausted futility, and the offering of arcane
intellectual interpretations. As I learned to hear their
remarks as wails of despair rather than cognitive declarations,
the therapy began to move in the right direction.
Following the
insights of Eugene Shelly about dealing with narcissistic
couples, I used paraphrasing mirrors with each partner.
This helped me to ascertain whether I had understood and soothed
each partner, and it helped the partners to realize that I had
actually attended to their experience. Gradually, they
began to question what they had known.
As the partners
slowly differentiated from each other and from their imago
expectations, a subtle change in their relationship started to
develop. For example, as I reflected back to Greg the
terror of being destroyed by the anticipated overwhelming
demands of Karen, who represented in a pre-cognitive way his
dependent and demanding mother. Greg started to recognize
the Karen indeed required little from him in the way of life
care. Of course, this alone did not automatically
eliminate his knowledge that he was viewed as a
non-person to be used as an instrument for he reduction of his
wife's anxiety.
Nevertheless,
gradually the two partners started pre-cognitively to know
the other as a person with his or her own perspective, although
they each remained basically the process-object for the other
while they struggled against ancient and unthought knowledge.
A decisive moment in
their therapy came when they attended an Imago Couples Workshop
about four months into their treatment. In the workshop,
where they could interact with each other for hours with the
safety of me as interlocutor, they were able to see more
clearly the entire Imago framework of their relationship and the
nature of their power struggle. This new cognitive knowing
became a component of their pre-verbal knowledge;
the other couples and I, as the presenter, took on the role of
supplementary ego.
Slowly, Karen and
Gregory began to know each other distally, as other than
themselves, as persons who had a self that was not totally
defined by their participation in the other's self. This
became a self-defining process as they added their newly found
perceptions to the imago This internalization of both the
continuing, dependable presence of the other and of new
representations to whom they related helped them to continue the
process of differentiation and to achieve a degree of secure
attachment that neither of them had before. Consequently,
the anxious/ambivalent attachment of Greg and the
depressive/schizoid attachment of Karen declined.
Several developmental
milestones occurred over a period of several months.
Gregory had a history of anxiously attaching himself to male
figures, oftentimes employers. He began to recognize that
these men had served as internal objects for him, as shaky
stand-ins for his absent father. Through these affiliate
objects, Greg had attempted to confirm his knowing of his
own existence through their confirmation of his competence and
accomplishments and their presence as a libidinal pole to help
him protect himself from disappearing into the alluring abyss of
the dependent, non-gratifying maternal figure. Through his
adulation of these men, he was able to attain some temporary
degree of validation for his own worth as a male. However,
this knowledge was laid on a base of poor self-object
relationship and an unstable perception of himself as a person,
and the relationships always ended in bitter disappointment and
grievous loss for him. Now, as his internalized images of
Karen provided for attachment based on self rather than
accomplishment. Greg's relationships with other males
became less of a life-and-death issue for him.
Karen, the more
schizoid and depressed of the two, did not succeed in developing
the same degree of attachment to Greg as a process-object, so
that her self-differentiation was still behind his.
Nevertheless, she experienced me as a male figure who attended
to her as an actual being, and through her work with me and with
her female individual therapist, Karen is developing a clearer
self-awareness.
About eighteen months
ago, Karen began to pressure Greg about having a baby. She
argued that before long, she would be too old to have a child
safely, and that she felt more capable of mothering without
behaving ragefully or psychotically toward the child. Greg
was more hesitant; he had one daughter already and saw many
deficits in his capacities as a father. Greg's doubts
about his parental skills were a cognitively delineated way of
symbolizing his still insubstantial sense of self.
Further, having experienced in the past Karen's retreats into
cold, withdrawn, and rejecting ways when she was under stress,
he was concerned that, with the continuous strain pf parenthood,
she might regress. This knowing declaration from
Greg infuriated Karen; she felt deeply hurt, and she
counter-attacked frequently during sessions.
Nevertheless, Greg
eventually began to see that his known doubts about Karen
were to a large extent projection. He began to incorporate
a differentiated knowledge of himself and to
understand the gains he had made as a father as a result of
developing more caring and graceful attitudes toward
himself. Eventually, both partners entered energetically
into the "Let's have a baby" mode.
This process,
however, was to be disappointing. The couple resorted to in
vitro fertilization; Karen eventually became pregnant,
but lost the baby in her fourth month. For a considerable
period, the couples therapy served as a container environment in
which the couple could express their intense anger - Greg's
anger toward Karen for not having taken good enough care of
herself, Karen's anger toward Greg for having postponed his
acquiescence until Karen was too old for a viable pregnancy, and
both partners' anger toward me for not having cured them quickly
enough.
For perhaps the first
time, the two partners realized that they each were separate
persons for whom their experience had its own meaning, that they
could experience empathic support with each other, and that,
through my example, it was possible to receive the other's anger
without being annihilated, rejected, or abandoned. Indeed,
Karen and Greg were clearly in a transitional stage of personal
development. Their knowing seemed increasingly to
belong to each of them individually, but because of their
growing differentiation, they also could share their knowledge
with each other.
Two other major
shifts took place. About two years ago, Greg gave up the
studio where he had worked exhaustively to prove the reality of
his self. He sold the rights for a major invention to a
small company and became an employee who was responsible for
creative innovations. For the first time in his life, he
was making a real living and paying his share of the couple's
expenses. Therefore, Karen no longer had to be responsible
for a portion of his child support payments.
This change provoked
a developmental crisis. Prior to this time, Karen had dept
her income and assets separate from Greg's; in fact, she
had been somewhat secretive about her holdings. When Greg
began to make consistent financial contributions to their joint
life and financial decisions needed to be made, their system
came up for question. I continued to hold them
therapeutically in the knowledge that they could live
with tension, anger, and distrust while yearning for affiliation
with each other. Their choice of a financial system was
theirs alone, and they are moving closer to commingling their
assets and expenses. However, occasionally they take steps
away from that position, such as when one of them (usually
Karen) is unhappy with a joint decision and feels a sudden
urgency to regain veto power.
In the present stage
of their treatment, Karen and Greg still struggle with the
pre-conscious knowing that they will be used, consumed,
and discarded (Greg) or attacked and rejected (Karen).
Karen still recedes to the terrified belief that she is a
non-person to her current self-object; in those moments,
she can become cold, contemptuous, and attacking. Greg is
increasingly sure, however, that these declarations are the
wounded cries of a desperate infant. Recently, Karen
charged that Greg will never take care of her as she wants him
to, but she simultaneously enumerated the attention and care she
does receive from him. Of course, she is correct in
stating that no one will ever be able to care for her as though
she were an infant. Nevertheless, through my careful
support and insistence, Greg was able to reflect to Karen his
understanding of her knowing experience and to solicit
from her suggestions for healing behavior changes that would
help transform her internalized representations and object
relations.
Greg's anxiety still
overtakes him at times, and he reverts to the abstract and
convoluted intellectualization that represents not his deepest knowing
but his effort to distance himself from the terror of his own
inadequacy. Karen is usually surprised at Greg's fear and
lack of security. In session, I help her to convey to him
her own perceptions of his strength. In earlier times,
this process would have been useless and he could not have
accepted it. Now, with a more consistent experience of
internal relationships with Karen and others and with a stronger
knowledge of himself as a self, Greg is individuated
enough to hear Karen's view of him as her own. He can
receive it as a reflection from her as a self-object and
reconfirm a clearer knowing of himself. Current
Process
Karen and Gregory are at a working-through phase of their
therapy. The crises they encounter are no longer
insurmountable. Their knowing of themselves as
selves and of each other as differentiated persons who can act
as both transformational objects and as transitional objects is
allowing them to each create a new imago. Will these new
sets of knowing expectations ever replace the old ones
that were so damaging to them? Probably not. What we
can expect, however, is that as their knowledge continues
to be built on differentiated experience, the multiple internal
relations that make up their respective images will continue to
grow healthier and more realistic expectations. Their knowing
is becoming both individuated and undifferentiated, a holistic
activity. References
Bollas, C. (1987). The
shadow of the object: Psychoanalysis of the
unthought
known. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Fairbairn, W. (1952). A revised psychopathology of the
psychoses
and
psychoneuroses. Psychoanalytic Studies of the
Personality.
London:
Routledge, Kegan, & Paul.
Heimann, P. (1956). Dynamics of transference
interpretation.
International
Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 37, 303-10.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). Psychiatric disorder in terms
of infantile
maturational
processes. The Maturational Process and the
Facilitating
Environment. London: Hogarth, 230-41. |
Notes
1. Throughout this
paper, for ease of expression, "he" is used as
the personal pronoun. When referring to an infant,
"he" is used to maintain clarity of reference
in the frequent juxtaposition to mother, she.
2. Self is an historically
consistent experience of many internal relationships,
which are mentally objectified, related to, and
known. Subject is a meaningful understanding of
one's own and others' existence and the capacity to
relate with them and with oneself.
3. From Hoon, S. (October,
2000), A Conversation with Eugene Shelly, M. Div, Imago
Connection, 6-7.
Stephen R. Plumlee, M.S., M. Div.
is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and a Licensed
Marriage and Family Therapist. He practices
individual, family, marital, and group psychoanalytic
therapy in Sarasota, Florida.
Mailing address:
1717 Second Street
Sarasota, FL 34236
e-mail: SRQPlum@aol.com |
|