So how do you psychoanalyze someone who isn’t there? If all you’ve got is a bad taste in your mouth from years past, a resistance to deal, and two books? And what if those two books are “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Old Man and the Sea”? What conclusions could you draw?

I’m thinking we’ve got to dig into these books.

Consider the first. Zen tells me that we’re dealing with severe repression. The fact that the main character suffers from split personality and that the good half might in fact be the repressed half. Hard to say exactly, but it seems then that the psychoanalyst would say that my subject is suggesting from the subconcious level the actual condition. The guise would be the surface level distractors: zen, motorcycles, the question of quality, good literature, etc. What seems to be lacking is the 50k volt destruction of the condition.

Moving on to Hemingway. It seems to be rather vague. Even if I consider it within the context of the first book, all I can come up with (and this is very loose) that the subconcious repressed good personality has tried to emerge, but no longer has the capactity to do so. Seems to make sense.

And when I said psychoanalyst I don’t mean to suggest I’m going to get into the whole castration issue. It seems pointless and I already think that Freud is nuts enough, stuck on the issue of sexuality when raw human desire is much more at the forefront (just not as immediately appealing).

From here, I don’t know where I will go. But I think it was good for me to get it down, regardless of who actually understands what I’m doing. This is important, and it has to be done eventually.