I. THE TA VI STOCK LECTURES 

of disturbance. The shaded columns show disturbed reactions. In reactions 7, 8, 9, 10, you observe for instance a whole series of disturbances: the stimulus word at 7 was a critical one, and without the test person noticing it at all three subsequent reaction times are overlong on account of the perseveration of the 

Average 
... r.~~s~j~~.}!m~ ... 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

Stimulus words 
7 knife 

13 lance (= spear) 16 to beat 
18 pointed 
19 bottle 

FIG. 5. Assc.~iation Test 

reaction to the stimulus word. The test person was quite unconscious of the fact that he had an emotion. Reaction 13 shows an isolated disturbance, and in 16-20 the result is again a whole series of disturbances. The strongest disturbances are in reactions 18 and 19. In this particular case we have to do with a socalled intensification of sensitiveness through the sensitizing 
50 

LECTURE II 

effect of an unconscious emotion: when a critical stimulus word has aroused a perseverating emotional reaction, and when the next critical stimulus word happens to occur within the range of that perseveration, then it is apt to produce a greater effect than it would have been expected to produce if it had occurred in a series of indifferent associations. This is called the sensitizing effect of a perseverating emotion. 
	1°3 	In dealing with criminal cases we can make use of the sensi- 
tizing effect, and then we arrange the critical stimulus words in such a way that they occur more or less within the presumable range of perseveration. This can be done in order to increase the effect of critical stimulus words. With a suspected culprit as a test person, the critical stimulus words are words which have a direct bearing upon the crime. 
	1°4 	The test person for Figure 5 was a man about 35, a decent 
individual, one of my normal test persons. I had of course to experiment with a great number of normal people before I could draw conclusions from pathological material. If you want to know what it was that disturbed this man, you simply have to read the words that caused the disturbances and fit them together. Then you get a nice story. I will tell you exactly what it was. 
	105 	To begin with, it was the word knife that caused four dis- 
turbed reactions. The next disturbance was lance (or spear) and then to beat, then the word pointed and then bottle. That was in a short series of fifty stimulus words, which was enough for me to tell the man point-blank what the matter was. So I said: "I did not know you had had such a disagreeable experience." He stared at me and said: "I do not know what you are talking about." I said: "You know you were drunk and had a disagreeable affair with sticking your knife into somebody." He said: "How do you know?" Then he confessed the whole thing. He came of a respectable family, simple but quite nice people. He had been abroad and one day got into a drunken quarrel, drew a knife and stuck it into somebody, and got a year in prison. That is a great secret which he does not mention because it would cast a shadow on his life. Nobody in his town or surroundings knows anything about it and I am the only one who by chance stumbled upon it. In my seminar in Zurich I also make these experiments. Those who want to confess are of course welcome to. However, I always ask them to 
51 

1. THE TA VISTOCK LECTURES 
bring some material of a person they know and I do not know, and I show them how to read the story of that individual. It is quite interesting work; sOTT1etimes one makes remarkable discovenes. 
	106 	I will give you other instances. Many years ago, when I was 
quite a young doctor, an old professor of criminology asked me about the experiment and said he did not believe in it. I said: 
"No, Professor? You can try it whenever you like." He invited me to his house and I began. After ten words he got tired and said: "What can you make of it? Nothing has come of it." I told him he could not expect a result with ten or twelve words; he ought to have a hundred and then we could see something. He said: "Can you do something with these words?" I said: "Little enough, but I can tell you something. Quite recently you have had worries about money, you have too little of it. You are afraid of dying of heart disease. You must have studied in France, where you had a love affair, and it has come back to your mind, as often, when one has thoughts of dying, old sweet memories come back from the womb of time." He said: "How do you know?" Any child could have seen it! He was a man of 72 and he had associated heart with pain-fear that he would die of heart failure. He associated death with to die-a natural reactionand with money he associated too little, a very usual reaction. Then things became rather startling to me. To pay, after a long reaction time, he said La Semeuse, though our conversation was in German. That is the famous figure on the French coin. Now why on earth should this old man say La Semeuse? When he came to the word kiss there was a long reaction time and there was a light in his eyes and he said: Beautiful. Then of course I had the story. He would never have used French if it had not been associated with a particular feeling, and so we must think why he used it. Had he had losses with the French franc? There was no talk of inflation and devaluation in those days. That could not be the clue. I was in doubt whether it was money or love, but when he came to kiss/ beautiful I knew it was love. He was not the kind of man to go to France in later life, but he had been a student in Paris, a lawyer, probably at the Sorbonne. It was relatively simple to stitch together the whole story. 
	107 	But occasionally you come upon a real tragedy. Figure 6 is 
the case of a woman of about thirty years of age. She was in the 52 
	
I. THE TA VISTOCK LECTURES 
clinic, and the diagnosis was schizophrenia of a depressive character. The prognosis was correspondingly bad. I had this woman in my ward, and I had a peculiar feeling about her. I felt I could not quite agree with the bad prognosis, because already schizophrenia was a relative idea with me. I thought that we are all relatively crazy, but this woman was peculiar, and I could not accept the diagnosis as the last word. In those days one knew precious little. Of course I made an anamnesis, but nothing was discovered that threw any light on her illness. Therefore I put her to the association test and finally made a very peculiar discovery. The first disturbance was caused by the word angel) and a complete lack of reaction by the word obstinate. Then there were evil) rich) money) stuPid) dear) and to marry. Now this woman was the wife of a well-to-do man in a very fine position and apparently happy. I had questioned her husband, and the only thing he could tell me, as she also did, was that the depression came on about two months after her eldest child had dieda little girl four years old. Nothing else could be found out about the aetiology of the case. The association test confronted me with a most baffling series of reactions which I could not put together. You will often be in such a situation, particularly if you have no routine with that kind of diagnosis. Then you first ask the test person about the words which are not going directly to the kernel. If you asked directly about the strongest disturbances you would get wrong answers, so you begin with relatively harmless words and you are likely to get an honest reply. I said: 
"What about angel? Does that word mean something to you?" She replied: "Of course, that is my child whom I have lost." And then came a great flood of tears. When the storm had blown over I asked: "What does obstinate mean to you?" She said: "It means nothing to me." But I said: "There was a big disturbance with the word and it means there is something connected with it." I could not penetrate it. I came to the word evil and could get nothing out of her. There was a severely negative reaction which showed that she refused to answer. I went on to blue) and she said: "Those are the eyes of the child I have lost." I said: 
"Did they make a particular impression on you?" She said: "Of course. They were so wonderfully blue when the child was born." I noticed the expression on her face, and I said: "Why are you upset?" and she replied: "Well, she did not have the eyes 
54 

108 

LECTURE II 
of my husband." Finally it came out that the child had had the eyes of a former lover of hers. I said: "What is upsetting you with regard to that man?" And I was able to worm the story out of her. 
In the little town in which she grew up there was a rich young man. She was of a well-to-do family but nothing grand. The man was of the moneyed aristocracy and the hero of the little town, and every girl dreamed of him. She was a pretty girl and thought she might have a chance. Then she discovered she had no chance with him, and her family said: "Why think of him? He is a rich man and does not think of you. Here is Mr. Soand-So, a nice man. Why not marry him?" She married him and was perfectly happy ever after until the fifth year of her marriage, when a former friend from her native town came to visit her. When her husband left the room he said to her: "You have caused pain to a certain gentleman" (meaning the hero). She said: "What? I caused pain?" The friend replied: "Didn't you know he was in love with you and was disappointed when you married another man?" That set fire to the roof. But she repressed it. A fortnight later she was bathing her boy, two years, and her girl, four years old. The water in the town-it was not in Switzerland-was not above suspicion, in fact it was infected with typhoid fever. She noticed that the little girl was sucking a sponge. But she did not interfere, and when the little boy said, "I want to drink some water," she gave him the possibly infected water. The little girl got typhoid fever and died, the little boy was saved. Then she had what she wanted-or what the devil in her wanted-the denial of her marriage in order to marry the other man. To this end she had committed murder. She did not know it; she only told me the facts and did not draw the conclusion that she was responsible for the death of the child since she knew the water was infected and there was danger. I was faced with the question whether I should tell her she had committed murder, or whether I should keep quiet. (It was only a question of telling her) there was no threat of a criminal case.) I thought that if I told her it might make her condition much worse, but there was a bad prognosis anyhow, whereas, if she could realize what she had done, the chance was that she might get well. So I made up my mind to tell her point-blank: "You killed your child." She went up in the air in an emotional state, but then 
55 

1. THE TA VISTOCK LECTURES 
she came down to the facts. In three weeks we were able to discharge her, and she never came back. I traced her for fifteen years, and there was no relapse. That depression fitted her case psychologically: she was a murderess and under other circumstances would have deserved capital punishment. Instead of going to jail she was sent to the lunatic asylum. I practically saved her from the punishment of insanity by putting an enormous burden on her conscience. For if one. can accept one's sin one can live with it. If one cannot accept it, one has to suffer the inevitable consequences. 
Discussion 
Question: 
	109 	I want to refer to last night. Towards the end of his lecture 
Dr. lung spoke of higher and lower functions and said the thinking type would use his feeling function archaically. I would like to know: is the reverse true? Does the feeling type, when he tries to think, think archaically? In other words, are thinking and intuition to be regarded always as higher functions than feeling and sensation? I ask this because ... I gathered from lectures elsewhere that sensation was the lowest of conscious functions and thinking a higher one. It is certainly the case that in everyday life thinking seems to be the top-notch. The professor-not this Professor-thinking in his study regards himself and is regarded as the highest type, higher than the countryman who says: "Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits." 
Professor lung: 
	110 	I hope I did not give you the impression that I was giving a 
preference to any of the functions. The dominating function in a given individual is always the most differentiated, and that can be any function. We have absolutely no criterion by which we can say this or that function in itself is the best. We can only say that the differentiated function in the individual is the best for adapting, and that the one that is most excluded by the superior function is inferior on account of being neglected. There are some modern people who say that intuition is the highest func- 
56 

LECTURE II (DISCUSSION) 
tion. Fastidious individuals prefer intuition, it is classy! The sensation type always thinks that other people are very inferior because they are not so real as he is. He is the real fellow and everybody else is fantastic and unreal. Everybody thinks his superior function is the top of the world. In that respect we are liable to the most awful blunders. To realize the actual order of functions in our consciousness, severe psychological criticism is needed. There are many people who believe that world problems are settled by thinking. But no truth can be established without all four functions. When you have thought the world you have done one-fourth of it; the remaining three-fourths may be against you. 
Dr. Eric B. Strauss: 
	III 	Professor lung said the word-association test was a means by 
which one could study the contents of the personal unconscious. In the examples he gave surely the matters revealed were matters in the patient's conscious mind and not in his unconscious. Surely if one wanted to seek for unconscious material one would have to go a step further and get the patient to associate freely on the anomalous reactions. I am thinking of the association with the word "knife," when Professor lung so cleverly assumed the story of the unfortunate incident. That surely was in the patient's conscious mind, whereas, if the word "knife" had unconscious associations we might, if we were Freudian-minded, have assumed it was associated with an unconscious castration complex or something of that kind. I am not saying it is so, but I do not understand what Professor lung means when he says the association test is to reach to the patient's unconscious. Surely in the instance given tonight it is used to reach the conscious, or what Freud would perhaps call the preconscious. 
Professor lung: 
	112 	I should like very much if you would pay more attention to 
what I say. I told you that unconscious things are very relative. When I am unconscious of a certain thing I am only relatively unconscious of it; in some other respects I may know it. The contents of the personal unconscious are perfectly conscious in certain respects, but you do not know them under a particular aspect or at a particular time. 
	113 	How can you establish whether the thing is conscious or un- 
57 

1. THE TA VISTOCK LECTURES 
conscious? You simply ask people. We have no other criterion to establish whether something is conscious or unconscious. You ask: "Do you know whether you have had certain hesitations?" They say: "No, I had no hesitation; to my knowledge I had the same reaction time." "Are you conscious that something disturbed you?" "No, I am not." "Have you no recollection of what you answered to the word 'knife'?" "None at aIL" This unawareness of facts is a very common thing. When I am asked if I know a certain man I may say no, because I have no recollection of him and so I am not conscious of knowing him; but when I am told that I met him two years ago, that he is Mr. Soand-So who has done such and such a thing, I reply: "Certainly I know him." I know him and I do not know him. All the contents of the personal unconscious are relatively unconscious, even the castration complex and the incest complex. They are perfectly known under certain aspects, though they are unconscious under others. This relativity of being conscious of something becomes quite plain in hysterical cases. Quite often you find that things which seem unconscious are unconscious only to the doctor but not perhaps to the nurse or the relatives. 
	114 	I had to see an interesting case once in a famous clinic in 
Berlin, a case of multiple sarcomatosis of the spinal cord, and because it was a very famous neurologist who had made the di· agnosis I almost trembled, but I asked for the anamnesis and had a very nice one worked out. I asked when the symptoms began, and found it was the evening of the day when the only son of the woman had left her and married. She was a widow, quite obviously in love with her son, and I said: "This is no sarcomatosis but an ordinary hysteria, which we can prove preseptly." The professor was horrified at my lack of intelligence or tact or I don't know what, and I had to walk out. But somebody ran after me in the street. It was the nurse, who said: "Doctor, I want to thank you for saying that it was hysteria. I always thought so." 
Dr. Eric Graham Howe: 
	liS 	May I return to what Dr. Strauss said? Last night Professor 
lung reproved me for merely using words, but I think it is important to get these words clearly understood. I wonder if you have ever asked for the association experiment to be applied to the words "mystic" or "fourth dimension"? I believe you would 
58 

LECTURE 11 (DISCUSSION) 
get a period of great delay and concentrated fury every time they were mentioned. I propose to return to the fourth-dimensional, because I believe it is a link badly needed to help o.ur understanding. Dr. Strauss uses the word "unconscious," but I understand from Professor lung that there is no such thing, there is only a relative unconsciousness which depends on a relative degree of consciousness. According to Freudians, there is a place, a thing, an entity called the unconscious. According to Professor lung, as I understand him, there is no such thing. He is moving in a fluid medium of relationship and Freud in a static medium of unrelated entities. To get it clear Freud is three-dimensional and lung is, in all his psychology, four-dimensional. For this rea· son, I would criticize if I may the whole diagrammatic system of lung because he is giving you a three·dimensional presentation of a four-dimensional system, a static presentation of something that is functionally moving, and unless it is explained you get it confused with the Freudian terminology and you cannot understand it. I shall insist that there must be some clarification of words. 
Professor lung: 
	116 	I could wish Dr. Graham Howe were not so indiscreet. You 
are right, but you should not say such things. As I explained, I tried to begin with the mildest propositions. You put your foot right into it and speak of four dimensions and of the word "mystic," and you tell me that all of us would have a long reaction time to such stimulus words. You are quite right, everybody would be stung because we are just beginners in our field. I agree with you that it is very difficult to let psychology be a living thing and not to dissolve it into static entities. Naturally you must express yourself in terms of the fourth dimension when you bring the time factor into a three-dimensional system. When you speak of dynamics and processes you need the time factor, and then you have all the prejudice of the world against you because you have used the word "four-dimensionaI." It is a taboo word that should not be mentioned. It has a history, and we should be exceedingly tactful with such words. The more you advance in the understanding of the psyche the more careful you will have to be with terminology, because it is historically coined and prejudiced. The more you penetrate the basic 
59 

I. THE TA vISTaCK LECTURES 
problems of psychology the more you approach ideas which are philosophically, religiously, and morally prejudiced. Therefore certain things should be handled with the utmost care. 
Dr. Howe: 
	117 	This audience would like you to be provocative. I am going 
to. say a rash thing. You and I do not regard the shape of the ego as a straight line. We would be prepared to regard the sphere as a true shape of the self in four dimensions, of which one is the three-dimensional outline. If so, will you answer a question: 
"What is the scope of that self which in four dimensions is a moving sphere?" ¥suggest the answer is: "The universe itself, which includes your concept of the collective racial unconscious." 
Professor lung: 
	118 	I should be much obliged if you would repeat that question. 
Dr. Howe: 
	119 	How big is this sphere, which is the four-dimensional self? I 
could not help giving the answer and saying that it is the same bigness as the universe. 
Professor lung: 
	120 	This is really a philosophical question, and to answer it re- 
quires a great deal of theory of cognition. The world is our picture. Only childish people imagine that the world is what we think it is. The image of the world is a projection of the world of the self, as the latter is an introjection of the world. But only the special mind of a philosopher will step beyond the ordinary picture of the world in which there are static and isolated things. If you stepped beyond that picture you would cause an earthquake in the ordinary mind, the whole cosmos would be shaken, the most sacred convictions and hopes would be upset, and I do not see why one should wish to disquiet things. It is not good for patients, nor for doctors; it is perhaps good. for philosophers. 
Dr. fan Suttie: 
	121 	I should like to go back to Dr. Strauss's question. I can un- 
derstand what Dr. Strauss means and I think I can understand what Professor Jung means. As far as I can see, Professor Jung fails to make any link between his statement and Dr. Strauss's. Dr. Strauss wanted to know how the word-association test can 
60 

LECTURE 11 (DISCUSSION) 
show the Freudian unconscious, the material that is actually pushed out of mind. As far as I understand Professor Jung, he means what Freud means by the "Id." It seems to me that we shauld define our ideas well enough to compare them and nat merely use them, each in our awn school. 
Professor lung: 
	122 	I must repeat again that my methods do not discover theo- 
ries) they discover facts) and I tell you what facts I discover with these methods. I cannot discover a castration complex or a repressed incest or something like that-I find only psychological facts) not theories. I am afraid you mix up too much theory with fact and you are perhaps disappointed that the experiments do. not reveal a castration complex and such things, but a castration complex is a theory. 'What you find in the association method are definite facts which we did not know before and which the test person also did not know in this particular light. I do not say he did not know it under another light. You know many things when you are in your business that you do not know at home, and at home you know many things that you do not know in your official position. Things are known in ane place and somewhere else they are not known. That is what we call unconscious. I must repeat that we cannot penetrate the unconscious emPirically and then discover, for instance, the Freudian theory of the castration complex. The castration complex is a mythological idea, but it is not found as such. What we actually find are certain facts grouped in a specific way, and we name them according to mythological or historical parallels. You cannot find a mythological motif, you can only find a personal motif, and that never appears in the form of a theory but as a living fact of human life. You can abstract a theory from it, Freudian or Adlerian or any other. You can think what yau please about the facts of the world, and there will be as many theories in the end as heads that think about it. 
Dr. Suttie: 
	123 	I protest! I am not interested in this or that theory or what 
facts are found or not, but I am interested in having a means of communication by which each can know what the others are thinking and for that end I hold that our conceptions must be defined. We must know what the other person means by a cer- 
61