Bonnie--

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your interjection.  December was
busy.

You suggested that maybe Buber's distinction between I-Thou and I-It
relationships might clarify any difference between the "real relationship" and
transference.  I'm not sure, as I have not read the primary source for this.
When I was in grad school, a teacher of mine was fond of bringing up Buber's
distinction in case conferences, but primarily in the context of evaluating
the _quality_ of a patient's object-relationships (as one means of assessing
degree of pathology), not to imply that transference and the real relationship
were necessarily separate entities.

If something is transference, then is it necessarily in the realm of I-It
relatedness?
If so, can it not still comprise an aspect of the real relationship?  Also,
where does transference end and the "real" ("authentic relatedness") begin?
Or do we have to be satisfied with a certain relativity in these concepts?

Perhaps you or some others could elaborate more on Buber's distinction to help
illuminate all of this.  Thanks.

David Mittelman


In a message dated 97-12-25 04:51:40 EST, Bonnie wrote:

< In a message dated 97-12-24 12:19:11 EST,  David Mittelman wrote:
<This also pertains to the conceptual problems with separating
<transference from "real relationships"--which I've always had trouble with.
<
< Hi David,
<     Would Martin Buber's distinction between I-Thou and I-It relationships
<help clarify things?
< Bonnie