Quartz 5

concept-withness

24 min read

同在（withness / t(w)ogetherness）

类型: concept
创建时间: 2026-08-29
最后更新: 2026-08-29
主来源: eshel-withness

摘要

同在（withness） 是奥芙拉·埃谢尔（Ofra Eshel）的标志性术语，指患者与分析师在深度相互贯通中生成的、超越二者分离主观性之和的涌现性新实体——她也称之为相互贯通、「二而一」（t(w)ogetherness / two-in-oneness）。它既不是一人心理学，也不是二人心理学。

本页的关键在于位置。埃谢尔主张：这一经验不在患者与分析师「之间」，而在患者世界「之内」——她分别对奥格登（Thomas Ogden）的分析性第三方、费罗（Antonino Ferro）的双人际场与巴朗热夫妇的汇流工作提出这一纠正，并明言它「甚至超越主体间性」，下探至韦尔莫特（Rudi Vermote）三分模型中的第三区：O 中的转化。

「同在」的另一半是悲悯（compassion）的词源论证——拉丁语 com（与）+ pati（受苦）= 与之共苦。由于 patient 同出 pati，悲悯即「与患者同在」且「成为患者」。埃谢尔借比昂（Wilfred Bion）把激情推到悲悯，并以此取代关系取向的见证一词。

一、题词：从「激情」到「悲悯」的提问

全文以安妮·卡森（Anne Carson）的诗句开篇，这个词源游戏即是全篇的提纲：

Not passion but compassion. Com—means “with.” What kind of withness would that be? Translate it. —Carson (1995, p. 51)

— Eshel, Withness，题词

二、定义：不可拆分的「二而一」新实体

Viewed in this way, it is not a one- or two-person psychology, but a process whereby analyst and patient interconnect psychically and become an emergent new entity that goes beyond the confines of their separate subjectivities and the simple summation of the two—an entity (unit or being) of “withness,” interconnectedness, or “t(w)ogetherness”: two-in-oneness.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

Interconnectedness 篇的平行表述把「不可分离」写进定义本身：

it is not a one-person or two-person psychology, but a process whereby patient and analyst become an emergent two-in-one new entity that is fundamentally inseparable into its two participants: an entity (unit or being) of interconnectedness, “twogetherness,” or “withness,” of essential inseparability.

— Eshel, Interconnectedness，「THE BE(COM)ING OF A NEW DIMENSION」

紧随其后的推论是：这个新实体超越患者与分析师、移情与反移情的二元性：

This new entity transcends the duality of patient and analyst, transference and countertransference.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

其整体定位则由开篇一句给出：以分析性在场及随之而来的同在为根基的工作，开启的是分析功能的又一个维度：

It has been my experience for more than a decade that psychoanalytic work that is grounded in the analytic presence and the ensuing patient–analyst “withness,” or interconnectedness, opens up yet another dimension of analytic functioning that engenders new possibilities for extending the reach of psychoanalytic treatment, particularly with more disturbed patients.

— Eshel, Withness，开篇

三、★ 位置之争：在「之内」，不在「之间」

这是本 Wiki 需要澄清的关键区分。埃谢尔的三处划界必须连读。

3.1 与奥格登的「主体间性分析性第三方」

她先承认亲缘——「密切相关」，并共享奥格登对移情／反移情的看法；随后立即点出两处相异：

In this respect, it is closely related to Ogden’s (1997) conception of the intersubjective analytic third, and I share his thinking that “do[es] not view transference and countertransference as separate entities that arise in response to one another; rather, I understand these terms to refer to aspects of a single intersubjective totality” (p. 25). However, I differ from Ogden in the emphasis that he places on the analyst’s own subjective past experiences and memories, which are evoked in the analyst’s mind in the session. I reach out toward the analyst’s embeddedness in the patient’s subjective reality, especially as a necessary, functioning presence.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

3.2 与费罗的「双人际场」及巴朗热夫妇的「汇流工作」

她完全同意费罗「场必须随患者自身的病而病，才能随后被治愈之」这一根本点，但纠正其位置：

“Such a description illustrates the fundamental point that the field must get ill with the patient’s own illness in order to be then cured of it” (Ferro 2010, p. 418). While I completely agree with this fundamental point, the analytic experience of “presencing” and “withness” or interconnectedness is not located between patient and analyst, but is as much as possible within the patient’s world. (I have pointed this out earlier with regard to Ogden’s intersubjective third.)

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

括号中的自引（「我此前已就奥格登的主体间性第三方指出过这一点」）表明：这是一次针对整个「之间」范式的统一纠正，而非针对某一位作者的局部异议。

3.3 位置的极致：成为患者的一部分，退向消失点

The analyst thus becomes part of the patient’s state of being and experiencing, to the extent of becoming psychically akin to a transplant or to chimeric antibodies (Eshel 2012); or, put differently, of receding toward the vanishing point in a perspective drawing.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

3.4 与关系取向的一般主体间性：明确「甚至超越」

“Presencing” and interconnectedness go beyond the level of interactions and patient–analyst relationships (object or subject relationships), even beyond intersubjectivity, to offer the opportunity for getting in touch with basic (environmental) relatedness and formative experiences of being and becoming (in terms of modern physics—to influence at an elemental, nano-level [Eshel 2013b]).

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

⚠️ 矛盾标注
议题：患者与分析师之间最具转化力的经验，究竟位于**「之间」还是「之内」？
A 方立场：埃谢尔——「the analytic experience of “presencing” and “withness” or interconnectedness is not located between patient and analyst, but is as much as possible within the patient’s world.」（Eshel, Withness，首节）
B 方立场：关系取向主流——Govrin 重述奥格登：诠释「emerges from what Thomas Ogden (2004) calls the analytic third—a jointly created unconscious space that exists between and beyond both participants.」（Govrin, Interpretation，第六章「Interpretation in Relational Psychoanalysis」）；阿隆（Lewis Aron）：「interpretation is best thought of as the quintessential container and purveyor of intersubjectivity between patient and analyst」；布隆伯格（Philip Bromberg）：人际新颖性「organized by what takes place between two minds, and belongs to neither person alone」（Govrin, Interpretation，第七章第五节，引 Stern, 2023, p. 1145）。
备注：三方在「治疗创造新现实而非揭示既有现实」上完全一致，分歧纯粹在位置**。这一分歧不可调和：关系取向的「之间」是保证双方分离主体性得以相互承认的伦理前提（取消它即沦为「doer and done to」的互补结构），而埃谢尔的「之内」正是要突破这一分离性——在崩解与死寂的状态中，尚无「两个主体」可供承认。属不可通约的范式差异，宜并列保留。参见 comparison-withness-vs-analytic-third。

四、理论坐标：韦尔莫特第三区与「O 中的转化」

为支撑「超越主体间性」这一主张，埃谢尔引入韦尔莫特的整合模型——三个分化程度不同的心理功能区：

Drawing heavily on Bion’s writing, Vermote discerns three distinct zones of psychic functioning with varying degrees of differentiation, different major psychoanalytic models, and clinical implications for the analyst: 1. Reason—Oedipal, understanding Ucs. System (Freud, Klein); 2. Transformation in Knowledge—container-contained, reverie, dream-work, alpha-function (Bion, Marty, de M’Uzan, Bollas, Botella and Botella, Ogden, Ferro); 3. Transformation in O, when dealing with the most non-thought, unknown, undifferentiated zone of psychic functioning (Winnicott, Milner, late Bion, late Lacan). Rather than epistemological exploration (knowing), the focus here is on the unknown and unknowable, ultimate, emotional reality-O, the primacy of being at-one with the patient’s emotional reality, and a lived, new experience.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」（引 Vermote, 2013）

请注意这份清单的归属含义：奥格登与费罗被明确归入第二区（容器—被涵容、遐想、梦工作、α功能），而埃谢尔自我定位于第三区：

In my view, the emerging dimension of the analyst’s “presencing” and “withness” or interconnectedness that I am proposing reaches down to this third, most undifferentiated and fundamental analytic functioning and transformation in O.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

在这一区中，比昂关于 O 中转化的激进表述获得其全部意义——分析师不是回忆起某段记忆，而是在与 O 的合一过程中被唤起一个相关星座：

at-one-ment with it [O] and evolution… In practice this means not that the analyst recalls some relevant memory but that a relevant constellation will be evoked during the process of at-one-ment with O, the process denoted by transformation O → K” (pp. 30, 33, italics added).

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」（引 Bion, 1970, pp. 30, 33）

以及那句被埃谢尔反复倚重的判词——分析师不能与 O 认同，他必须「是」它：

“With this [O] the analyst cannot be identified; he must be it” (p. 27, italics in original).

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Bion, 1970）

五、量子式相互贯通与隐缠序：治疗创造而非揭示精神现实

同在的物理学借喻取自戴维·玻姆（David Bohm）：

I have described this process as quantum interconnectedness (drawing on physicist David Bohm’s phrase, quantum interconnectedness of distant systems) in order to convey the profound implications of this quantumlike psychoanalytic counterpart. It evokes the quantum physics revolutionary ideas of the inseparability of observer and observed, the crucially formative effects of the process and the conditions of observation, and the unbroken wholeness that underlies our perceived world of separateness at the particle level (Bohm 1980; Botella and Botella 2005; Eshel 2002, 2005, 2006; Field 1996; Kulka 1997; Mayer 1996).

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

This unified counterpart in psychoanalysis may be described as the implicate order (Bohm 1980) of psychoanalysis.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

其认识论后果是一句断言——治疗创造精神现实：

As in quantum reality, treatment thus creates psychic reality, and goes beyond the exposing or deciphering of the patient’s already existing repressed or concealed psychic reality.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

这一「创造」在相互贯通的心理空间中被具体化为一个非线性的新可能性：

Their interconnected psychic existence—through the analyst’s readiness to be given over to this interconnection—creates an actual, nonlinear (synergic and transcendent) new possibility of getting in touch with, wit(h)nessing, experiencing, containing, and affecting hitherto unknown, dissociated, unthinkable aspects of being and relating.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

注意 wit(h)nessing 这一排版：埃谢尔把 witnessing 一词拆开嵌入 withness，用印刷形式本身完成了她对见证的替换。

六、悲悯的词源论证：com + pati = 与之共苦

Compassion, from the Latin com, “with” + pati, “to suffer,” means to suffer with (and, I would add, to suffer within), to be present within another’s suffering and become at-one with it.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

她接着指出，那些常被视作同义的词在词源上并不同源——**怜悯（pity）**出自拉丁语 pietas（义务），**仁慈（mercy）**出自 merces（报酬）。该句在原始文本中被脚注隔断，故此处述其义而不引原文。

而 patient 一词亦出自同一个 pati。由此得出本页最重要的一句推论：

In addition, the word patient is derived from the same Latin word pati, to suffer. Hence, as the etymology of the word suggests, compassion is being-with the patient and being the patient. Thus, the withness of compassion is what distinguishes it from other feelings of sorrow for the suffering of others, such as pity and mercy (and also from such feelings as kindness and generosity).

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

与保持距离的怜悯的对比由两段引文支撑。首先是埃谢尔自己的界定：

Compassion involves and shares, while pity and mercy are often considered more distinct, more distant and impersonal, and may include aloofness, feelings of superiority, and condescension toward another’s suffering.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

其次是阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）被引的那句——怜悯与悲悯「不仅不相同，它们甚至可能毫无关联」：

For compassion, to be stricken with the suffering of someone else as though it were contagious, and pity, to be sorry without being touched in the flesh, are not only not the same, they may not even be related.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Arendt, 1965, p. 85）

以及阿伦特对怜悯的诊断——怜悯者「未在肉身上被击中」并保持「感伤的距离」：

Pity “may be the perversion of compassion” because the person who pities “is not stricken in the flesh” and keeps a “sentimental distance.”

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Arendt, 1965）

阿伦特还给出了悲悯的另一条界限：它只能是共苦（co-suffering），因此只能指向具体的某一个人，不能指向一个阶级或一个民族：

Compassion, by its very nature, cannot be touched off by the sufferings of a whole class or a people, or, least of all, mankind as a whole. It cannot reach out farther than what is suffered by one person and still remain what it is supposed to be, co-suffering.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Arendt, 1965, p. 85）

七、从激情（passion）到悲悯（compassion）

埃谢尔坦承：比昂虽使用了这两个词，却未把它们擢升为概念——她的工作正是把它们概念化：

“The words compassion and passion are used by Bion in some seminal texts. Nevertheless, they do not attain the status of concepts. Bion uses the word ‘compassion’ in its vernacular, colloquial sense” (p. 146).

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Sandler, 2005）

第一步是激情。比昂的定义包含两个要素：激情由 L、H、K 派生，是以强度与温热被经验到而不含任何暴力意味的情绪；它是两个心智相连的证据：

By “passion” or the lack of it, I mean the component derived from L, H*,* and K. I mean the term to represent an emotion experienced with intensity and warmth though without any suggestion of violence… Passion is evidence that two minds are linked and that there cannot possibly be fewer than two minds if passion is present.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Bion, 1963, pp. 12-13）

第二步是悲悯。比昂晚期的合一（at-one-ment）与分析师「是」O——尽管他自己并未把它与悲悯联系起来——以及他晚年的那句自白：

“I do not think we could tolerate our work—painful as it often is for both us and our patients—without compassion” (p. 522).

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Bion, 1991）

第三步是合成。埃谢尔把这些收进她自己的 com-passion：

All these ideas of Bion’s have infused themselves into my thinking of compassion as patient–analyst “withness” within the violence of the suffering—com-passion that incorporates passion experienced with intensity and warmth, though without any suggestion of violence; that goes beyond the analyst’s projective-introjective identification, and is the analyst’s “being” and “becoming” at-one with the patient’s inmost emotional reality.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

她的正式提议即在此处给出——同在取代见证：

But while the term witness applies to an interaction between two subjectivities (Stern 2012; see also Reis’s attempt to broaden the conception of witnessing, 2009a, 2009b), I wish to propose here the notion of psychoanalytic “withness”—the being there, within the experience of suffering, becoming at-one with it, in deep patient–analyst interconnectedness.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

八、与关系取向悲悯观的划界

埃谢尔指出，既有的精神分析悲悯文献全部采取互动的、关系的、二人心理学的视角；即便奥兰治（Donna Orange）也自陈其悲悯只是「我曾称为精神分析见证功能」的更关系化的版本：

The above articles, however, relate to compassion from interactive, relational, two-person psychology perspectives. Even Orange’s recent paper on the subject of compassion is, as she herself writes, “a more relational version of what I once called the psychoanalytic function of witness” (2006, p. 7).

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

她也退回另外两种更包容的悲悯观——库尔卡（Raz Kulka）的超个人状态，与埃廷格（Bracha Ettinger）的「对患者原初客体亦悲悯」——只保留患者—分析师相互贯通中的悲悯：

I, however, would like to return from these inclusive views of compassion as interconnectedness of all beings, and of compassion toward the patient’s significant objects, to compassion only in patient–analyst interconnectedness.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

被退回的库尔卡原话（可见其「废除主体间个体性隔板」的用法与埃谢尔的分寸差异）：

compassion is not an interpersonal state, but a supra-personal state; not a feeling, but an ethical decision for non-dual interconnectedness, an existential transcendence that turns man into pure presence” (2008a, pp. 118-119).

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Kulka, 2008a, pp. 118-119）

埃谢尔由此把悲悯收束为一个极其吃力的临床动作——不是伦理姿态，而是留在那里：

I will concentrate on the analyst’s difficult, sometimes even exceedingly difficult struggle to give over him-/herself—with all his or her might, mind, heart, soul (Eigen 1981)—to being and staying within the painful, annihilated-annihilating realness of the patient’s suffering, in deep interconnectedness, in patient–analyst suffering.

— Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

九、邻近表述：一个谱系

埃谢尔列举了若干强调患者—分析师深刻连结的当代表述，并逐一安置它们与同在的关系：奥格登所谓「需要两个心智才能思考一个人最困扰的、先前不可思考的念头」；博泰拉夫妇（Botella & Botella）的作为双重（double）而运作；以及费罗与巴朗热的「场」：

Another formulation is Botella and Botella’s (2005) intriguing description of the analyst’s “functioning or working as a double,” which goes beyond “already-known” countertransference meaning and thus gives access to the patient’s unrepresentable areas that would otherwise remain traumatically unknown and unreachable (pp. 82-83).

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

The conceptualizations of the Barangers’ work of confluence (2009) and Ferro’s bipersonal field (1999, 2009, 2010; see also Ferro and Basile 2009) both emphasize the formation of a new identity—the analytic field—which is created between patient and analyst within the unit that they form in the session.

— Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

Interconnectedness 篇中还有一个更简洁的「二而一」表述，强调相互渗透的影响与超越分析师单纯参与患者经验：

They forge a deeper unity of experiential–emotional interconnectedness with interpenetrating impact upon each other. It is a cojoint, living therapeutic entity that goes beyond the mere participation of the analyst in the patient’s experience—thus transcending the confines of their separate psychic existences and the simple summation of the two.

— Eshel, Interconnectedness，「THE BE(COM)ING OF A NEW DIMENSION」

十、临床落点：除非触及谷底

同在的临床定义最终落在一句总结上——分析师的临在与相互贯通，共同承载患者那「攫人的、不可承受的剧痛、毁灭与死亡」：

And I add: there is no end unless the bottom of the trough has been reached*, un-* less the thing feared has been experienced in a compassionate holding, within the analyst’s “presencing” and interconnecting with the patient’s gripping, unbearable agony, devastation, and death. Analyst-and-patient t(w)ogether there, with-in. For me, it was a very deep moment of com-passion.

— Eshel, Withness，「CLINICAL ILLUSTRATION: “FOR YOU HAVE RETURNED MY SOUL WITHIN ME WITH COMPASSION”」

关键引文

  1. Viewed in this way, it is not a one- or two-person psychology, but a process whereby analyst and patient interconnect psychically and become an emergent new entity that goes beyond the confines of their separate subjectivities and the simple summation of the two—an entity (unit or being) of “withness,” interconnectedness, or “t(w)ogetherness”: two-in-oneness.
    — Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

  2. While I completely agree with this fundamental point, the analytic experience of “presencing” and “withness” or interconnectedness is not located between patient and analyst, but is as much as possible within the patient’s world.
    — Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

  3. “Presencing” and interconnectedness go beyond the level of interactions and patient–analyst relationships (object or subject relationships), even beyond intersubjectivity, to offer the opportunity for getting in touch with basic (environmental) relatedness and formative experiences of being and becoming (in terms of modern physics—to influence at an elemental, nano-level [Eshel 2013b]).
    — Eshel, Withness，「WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE AND “WITHNESS” WOULD THAT BE?」

  4. Compassion, from the Latin com, “with” + pati, “to suffer,” means to suffer with (and, I would add, to suffer within), to be present within another’s suffering and become at-one with it.
    — Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

  5. Hence, as the etymology of the word suggests, compassion is being-with the patient and being the patient. Thus, the withness of compassion is what distinguishes it from other feelings of sorrow for the suffering of others, such as pity and mercy.
    — Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

  6. Passion is evidence that two minds are linked and that there cannot possibly be fewer than two minds if passion is present.
    — Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」（引 Bion, 1963, pp. 12-13）

  7. But while the term witness applies to an interaction between two subjectivities (Stern 2012; see also Reis’s attempt to broaden the conception of witnessing, 2009a, 2009b), I wish to propose here the notion of psychoanalytic “withness”—the being there, within the experience of suffering, becoming at-one with it, in deep patient–analyst interconnectedness.
    — Eshel, Withness，「COMPASSION」

关联

引用来源

  • eshel-withness — 本页全部核心论断的主要来源：定义、位置之争、Vermote 第三区、悲悯词源、激情到悲悯、与见证及关系取向的划界
  • eshel-interconnectedness — 「本质上不可分离」的平行定义与「共同的治疗实体」表述
  • govrin-interpretation — 提供关系取向「之间」范式的对照引文（分析性第三方、Aron、Bromberg）

变更记录

Graph View

Backlinks