brevity advised

"Symbolism versus association: my question is, do these amount to parallel, or even complementary methods, as Freud wished? Or are we dealing rather with two antagonistic vectors, precisely those of anti-hermeneutics and hermeneutics?" (8)."I will insist once again on the fact that the original discovery of Freud is that of a method. And unprecedented method, it is linked to something equally unprecedented, the foundation of the psycho-analytic situation" (9-10)."Hermeneutics, translation, theorization - these are different facets of the same activity: the reception of the other's message . . . the only genuine, originary hermeneutist is the human being" (10).Here again I feel like the "conscious" is somehow being synonimized with the social - the task of stringing thoughts together in a sane order is always a task of excluding/silencing other relationships by illuminating/figuring/distinguishing one (self) from the other. The symbol is functional only in its fixity. The association is still a process of discerning but seems more open in that the variable is not a restricted movement (a pinned location, a coordinate, a symbol) but a paused movement (a parameter, a threshold of proximity). If Freud has given us a method, I'd consider it a method of approach, though the approach is, unfortunately, "self-conscious" -- an approach to a scene, therefore a position, a grip, an uncertain gesture. And if Laplanche is urging "hands off" does this not suggest that we sour meaning and unmeaning if we try to grasp it too long, if we cannot let it go and release it from its trap. Prolonged contact with the unconscious may be degradation. I am reminded of the interactive tanks at aquariums that limit touch to two fingers for a few seconds.