134forms are broken and roles dropped. The person emerges when his roles are left behind. True identity is indefinable, role-less integrity. The individual is lost when he is pinned down and categorised; when he does not categorise himself, he is alive, as, in some sense, the analyst is alive when he drops his role as analyst.Matter remains fixed unless acted upon by a greater force. The approach we have taken here views eros as that force which may break up old forms and open the way for transforming. We should keep in mind that sexuality not 'on1y has to do with primitive levels of interaction but operates as metaphor for our deepest connections to the universe. In myth, for example, eros expresses the creative forces, the Yin and Yang, of nature. We have furthermore tried to suggest that transference and countertransference are not simply symptoms of pathology but, when observed and confronted, become possibilities for both patients and analyst to go &dquo;across&dquo; and &dquo;beyond&dquo; limited referents and definitions and encounter their intimacy.

This is an attempt to examine certain parameters of group behaviour in such a way as to extend the classical Freudian metapsychological constructs in relation to personality structure and to pose questions about the concept of mind.In order to approach this task, reference is made to a paper by Arsenian et al (1) in which they made some interesting observations about behavioural patterns in small groups. The first of these was that &dquo;the unit of group action and process is frequently not an individual, but a pair or larger structure&dquo;. This tendency is much more pronounced and easily observable in large groups, in which various &dquo;power blocs&dquo; form and disperse, and their composition may change considerably, with individuals &dquo;switching camps&dquo; as conditions within the group change. In the paper mentioned, it is also noted that, under variable instances of group composition, persons could change quite radically their characteristic way of operating, in effect responding to group pressures for certain patterns of behaviour to occur. They introduced the term &dquo;Billet&dquo; to express the notion that some recurrent behaviour patterns are largely determined by the requirements of the situation, and proposed its distinction from &dquo;Role&dquo; concept which they saw largely determined by personality factors. They cited an earlier paper by two of the authors (2) in which they repeatedly observed, in small groups, recurrent patterns of behaviour which threw up characters such as loyal lieutenant, a jester, a contender for leadership, etc., &dquo;paralleling the historians cast of characters in descriptions of court history and intrigue surrounding a centre'' figure&dquo;.The usefulness of these observations, to me, is that they permit a view of group process not asmuch as resulting from a collection of individuals in interaction, but as certain behavioural patterns, or Billet functions, represented by units of group action, interacting with each other. The individual membership of these units is of secondary importance, and may change considerably over a period of time, as may the nature of the Billet function. Over a lengthy period, any one individual may have the opportunity to identify (3) with, and take part in enacting, a number of different Billet functions, some of which may differ radically from his or her characteristic mode of relating.At this point, a deviation to consider general principles applying to all forms of psychoanalytic psychotherapy (including group analysis) is pertinent to the overall theme. The basic technique in these therapies involves setting up a therapeutic situation which is contrived so as to make maximum use of interpersonal interactions in bringing about significant changes in the intrapsychic structure of individuals. Central to this technique are

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract