Writing on the interweaving of the intrapsychic with the intersubjective, André Green holds that “the essence of the situation at the heart of the analytic exchange is to accomplish the return to oneself by means of a detour via the other” (Green, 2000, p. 12, italics in the original). Such a trajectory, of course, concerns both analyst and patient and is determined by transference–countertransference dialectics. Regarding the analyst, an important factor in this trajectory is his receptivity to the patient and to what the patient brings. This issue is not new. Freud himself, as early as 1912, advised the analyst “to turn his own unconscious like a receptive organ towards the transmitting unconscious of the patient” (Freud, 1912, p. 115). However, receptivity is not necessarily a given for the analyst. Ferenczi was the first to draw attention to analysts’ lack of attention “to the highly emotional character of the analysand’s communications, often brought out only with the greatest difficulty” (Ferenczi, 1932, p. 1).The reason for this could lie first in the unavoidable “disturbance that is sparked in the analyst by his interaction with the patient” (Lia, 2017, p. 85). Michael Parsons believes that analytic work “arouse[s] powerful inward responses in all analysts throughout their careers” (2006, p. 1183), obviously due to this interaction. Listening to one’s own feelings and listening to the patient are of course regarded as a prerequisite of analytic exchange. Nevertheless, they also represent the fruit, if not the goal, of a long, perhaps lifelong, effort on the part of the analyst. In their article “Searching for Bion: Cogitations, a new Clinical Diary à la Ferenczi?,” Franco Borgogno and Silvio Arrigo Merciai follow W.R. Bion in his personal journey towards “a kind of listening more authentically centered on his own thoughts and emotions and those of the patient during the analytic encounter.” The authors believe that this struggle evolved together with Bion’s “struggle for identity,” aiming for emergence from the impasse of one-sided adherence to a position emanating from belonging to a group that was “treating with great suspicion any expression of the analyst’s subjectivity”. They consider that in Cogitations (a posthumous collection of some of Bion’s manuscripts), Bion exposes aspects of this struggle and its impasses with much honesty; and it is from such a point of view that they see it as a work comparable with Ferenczi’s Clinical diary – in which Sandor Ferenczi speaks openly of the detrimental effects of the analyst’s one-sidedness on the patient (Ferenczi, 1932). It is common knowledge that, in his late work, Bion offered a fresh glimpse of the analytic exchange and of the patient. He writes:

中文翻译：

---

病人的新鲜一瞥

安德烈·格林 (André Green) 在谈到内在心理与主体间性的交织时认为，“分析交换核心情境的本质是通过他者绕道完成回归自我”(Green, 2000, p 12、原文斜体）。当然，这样的轨迹涉及分析师和患者，并且由移情-反移情辩证法决定。对于分析师来说，这条轨迹中的一个重要因素是他对病人和病人带来的东西的接受度。这个问题并不新鲜。早在 1912 年，弗洛伊德本人就建议分析师“将自己的无意识像一个接受器官一样转向传输患者的无意识”（Freud, 1912, p. 115）。然而，对于分析师来说，接受度不一定是给定的。Ferenczi 是第一个提请注意分析师缺乏“对分析者交流中高度情绪化的特征的关注，通常只有最大的困难”（Ferenczi，1932，第 1 页）。原因可能首先在于在不可避免的“分析师与患者的互动中引发的干扰”（Lia，2017，第 85 页）。迈克尔·帕森斯认为，分析工作“在所有分析师的职业生涯中都会引起[s] 强大的内在反应”（2006 年，第 1183 页），显然是由于这种相互作用。倾听自己的感受和倾听病人的声音当然被视为分析性交流的前提。尽管如此，它们也代表了分析师长期甚至终生努力的成果，如果不是目标的话。在他们的文章“寻找 Bion：Cogitations，新的临床日记 à la Ferenczi？”，Franco Borgogno 和 Silvio Arrigo Merciai 跟随 WR Bion 在他的个人旅程中走向“一种更真实地以他自己的思想和情感以及分析遭遇期间患者的思想和情感为中心的倾听。” 作者认为，这场斗争与比恩的“身份斗争”一起演变，旨在摆脱片面坚持立场的僵局，这种立场源于“对分析师主观性的任何表达都抱有极大的怀疑” . 他们认为在 Cogitations（比昂的一些手稿的死后合集）中，比昂非常诚实地揭露了这场斗争的各个方面及其僵局；正是从这样的角度来看，他们将其视为一部与 Ferenczi 的临床日记相媲美的作品——其中 Sandor Ferenczi 公开谈论分析师的片面性对患者的不利影响（Ferenczi，1932）。众所周知，比恩在他晚期的作品中提供了对分析交流和病人的全新一瞥。他写：