Abstract

This reply is only/largely to the first, main part of Leite's response to my paper. A reply to the second, which criticizes the use of the imagination in the account, has to be left aside for reasons of space. What more, following Wollheim, I have to say about the imagination and its relation to identification, can be found in Braddock.Originally, my paper was organized around the above title, my meaning being that, on the one hand, the paper showed how to 'translate out' projective identification from its hermetic psychoanalytic usage by combining philosophical analysis and the 'extension of ordinary psychology' approach. This would...