world as such which includes an immediate and direct understanding of others.

Agreeing with Binswanger, Boss thought that neurotic and psychotic patients suffered from a constriction, or "blockage," of their world openness. Occasionally, for example, an individual refused a "world-relation" through a "bodily-jamming." Once again, in accord with Heidegger, Boss agreed that the body was "one of the media through which the world-disclosing relationships which constitute existence are carried out."7 Boss's Daseinanalysis attempted to determine what specific modifications of normal being-in-the-world accounted for the occurrence of such experiences. The aim of Boss's Daseinanalysis, then, was to make the individual human being transparent in his/her own structure, to adhere to the immediately given objects and phenomena of the world of human beings.

IV. Heidegger's Critique of Freudian Psychoanalysis

We now turn to the relationship between Heidegger's philosophy and Freud's psychoanalysis.8 Freud and Heidegger did not have any direct contact with one another. As mentioned, it was Binswanger and Boss who served as catalysts for the historic meeting of Heidegger's hermeneutical phenomenological ontological approach and Freudian psychoanalysis. Binswanger had developed a lifelong friendship (1907-38) with Freud, and Boss had been Freud's analysand (1925). It was Boss who formed an extended friendship with Heidegger (1947-76), and Binswanger who had been Heidegger's intermittent acquaintance.

On the one hand, it is clear that Freud had at least some acquaintance with Heidegger's philosophy via his friendship with Binswanger. In 1936, Binswanger sent Freud a copy of his lecture "Freud's Conception of Man in Light of Anthropology." In it Binswanger argued, among other things, that "man is not only mechanical necessity and organization, not merely world or in-the-world. His existence is understandable only as being-in-the-world, as the projection and disclosure of world—as Heidegger has so powerfully demonstrated."9 Freud's response to it was characteristically pointed: "In it I rejoiced over your beautiful prose, your erudition, the scope of your horizon, your tact in disagreement.. . . But, of course, I don't believe a word of what you say."10 Freud's reaction was hardly surprising given his well-known ambivalence to philosophy and his clear commitment to the scientific Weltanschauungen.11

On the other hand, Heidegger's familiarity with and reaction to Freud's work was considerably more complicated. Medard Boss had been an analysand of Freud's over dozens of sessions in 1925, and it was

Zollikon Seminars by Martin Heidegger