1. We each have untapped talents and opportunities for greater satisfaction. Satisfaction corresponds closely with how much of our talent we put to use. Experience shows that even hardworking people who are the best and brightest people in their field typically have 30–40 percent of their talent untapped. We have a wealth of opportunities to contribute to the world and improve our personal well-being. We just need help to figure out how.
2. Accessing our hopes helps us to get out of our own way and stimulates better results. Our brains work both to protect us and to help us grow. When we are in a hopeful frame of mind, we engage the parts of our brains that specialize in creativity, insight, and development of alternatives. We need all these faculties to tap our talents and enjoy them more fully.
3. We can be Talent Catalysts for one another to generate new ideas and precipitate action. With carefully targeted questions, generous listening, and a focus on action, Talent Catalyst Conversations help us to look at our careers and lives from a new angle. We can readily learn and share these conversation skills with others.
The psychoanalytic session can be thought of as a dream in its own right (dreams are continuous by night and throughout wakefulness, according to Bion, 1970) and is consequently interpretable via dream analysis. Freud (1911c) states that in an analytic session the dream should be treated no differently than the analysand's free associations (p. 92). Bion seemed to think the same and actually expressed this idea to me on more than one occasion. In my own psychoanalytic work and in my supervisions I take this idea for granted. Thus, a dream reported during a session constitutes, in turn, a dream within the dream and is contextualized within the associative matrix of the preceding and succeeding associations to the dream in the session. In other words, the dream within the dream and the surrounding associations “inter-associate” holographically.1 Asking the analysand for associations, although a valid intervention on the part of the analyst, runs the risk of isolating the dream and lifting it from its matrix and context as well as awakening the analysand from his analytic preconscious trance.2
The political winds turned decidedly conservative in Colorado at the November 1914 election. Voters passed the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors as of January 1916, 129,589 to 118,017. Control of the next regular General Assembly shifted back to the “law and order” Republicans in a landslide victory.1 Of the seventeen senators elected, only five were Democrats.2 The control in the senate was then a tight 18 to 17 for the Republicans; all but one of the committee chairs and leaders of the senate were Republicans, including the president of the senate, Lieutenant Governor Moses Lewis, who was elected for the 1915–1916 term. Which party is in charge can determine where a senator sits, and in later years it came to determine how desirable his or her office space is. While I was in office, the majority Republicans officed one Democratic senator in a windowless broom closet, which he claimed to like.
The sole Democratic committee chair during this session was Barney Napier, who had run for governor.3 Helen, a holdover senator, lost the chairmanship of the Committee on Education and Educational Institutions. She served as a member of that committee and of two others, the City and County of Denver Committee and the Revision and Engrossment Committee.4 Helen was still the only woman in the senate; there was also only one woman in the house, Representative Evangeline Heartz.5