- 将情绪经验转化成阿尔发元素的过程中，阿尔发功能是核心的部分，因为现实感对个体之重要性，就如食物、饮料、空气和排泄废物的重要性那般。无法吃，喝，或顺畅呼吸对生命本身有灾难性的后果。无法运用情绪经验，在人格发展上也会造成类似的灾难；这些灾难包括不同程度的精神病衰败(psychotic deterioration)，他们可被视为人格的死亡。使用一种模式(model），如：我现在要使用的消化系统模式，总是会招致我在第94 页(本书页数)所讨论的危险。为了减低这些危险，并让讨论具有科学性，我们需要一个代表情绪经验的记号。如果一个分析师为自己建立一套可用于工作上的精神分析理论，而这套理论是基于一些好的基本理论，它们己被充分了解，并能够一一个别或联合起来一一涵盖许多他可能遇到的情境，那么这就有助于一记号之产生。以下的描绘，显示可能的进展路线，我发现它们是有帮助的。
A central part is played by alpha-function in transforming an emotional experience into alpha-elements because a sense of reality matters to the individual in the way that food, drink, air and excretion of waste products matter. Failure to eat, drink or breathe properly has disastrous consequences for life itself. Failure to use the emotional experience produces a comparable disaster in the development of the personality; I include amongst these disasters degrees of psychotic deterioration that could be described as death of the personality. As always, the use of a model, as I am using the model of the digestive system here, is open to the dangers I discuss on p. 80. To moderate these dangers and make discussion scientific a notation to represent emotional experience is required. If the individual analyst built up for himself an anthology of working psycho-analytic theory on a foundation of a few good basic theories well understood and capable, individually and in combination, of covering a great many of the situations he might expect to meet, it might help the creation of a notation. What follows is a sketch to indicate the lines along which progress could be made and which I have found helpful.
- 我们称之为“爱”和“恨”的情感，很明显地，属于基本情绪(basic emotion）。羡嫉与感激、忧郁、罪恶、焦虑等，皆于精神分析理论上占有支配的地位，且似乎与性【1】一样，可以与爱和恨归于一【2】。事实上，我选择了三个因素，我将它们视为彼此相关的客体间联结的内在本质。我们无法脱离关系去构想一种情绪经验。我假设的基本关系是：(1)X 爱y ； (2)X 恨y；以及(3)X 知道Y 。这些联结分别以符号L 、H 和K【3】来表示。这些抽象的联结L 、H 和K，所对应的体现是什么?假设一个分析师熟悉的虚构情境。个案史密斯正自由自在的谈话，合作而且友善。在其联想的过程中，他提到他认识的某个心理治疗师，钟斯，是个很愚蠢的人，且对精神分析事实上一点都不了解。个案相当了解他而且有很好的理由，据个案说，不喜欢他。他曾治疗过他的一个朋友，梅先生，结果很糟糕。他朋友的婚姻一向都很和谐，直到接受治疗才起变化等。显然，这是一个错综复杂的沟通。个案与分析师之间有联结；个案与心理治疗师之间，个案与他的朋友之间，个案与他朋友的分析师之间，也有各种的联结。个案与分析师之间的联结有直接的证据。关于个案对其他联结的报告，证据几乎都是间接，虽然需要的时候，会谈过程提供的直接证据亦可来补充个案自己的叙述。个案说他认识钟斯。这要记录为“史密斯K 钟斯”吗?他说他不喜欢钟斯。那应该是史密斯H 钟斯吗?个案说“他的朋友”梅先生。那么，是史密斯L 梅吗?或者在分析中，先有某些数据，某种态度或语调，暗示着“史密斯L 梅太太”的关系?由一次虚构的会谈所引发的问题必然是无止境的，而能够回答的问题也是有限的。不过对实际的会谈来说，情况也差不多。然而，当分析师开始有这些问题，其回答就取决于他对转移关系本质之直接证据的诠释。看起来，既然分析情境十分错综复杂，以三个简单的符号来记录可能没什么价值。若承认符号只表达了情绪经验的一部分（即，联结)，那么一次虚构的会谈不就显示符号L 、H和K 掩蔽了一复杂的联结，在骗人的简单符号下，可能藏有无尽的变异?还是说，这些符号僵化地定义了联结，使得它们在实际分析情境之应用上，变成一种无望的曲解伪造?
he feelings we know by the names “love” and “hate” would seem to be obvious choices if the criterion is basic emotion. Envy and Gratitude, Depression, Guilt, Anxiety, all occupy a dominant place in psycho-analytic theory and would seem with Sex to be choices to place with love and hate. In fact I prefer three factors I regard as intrinsic to the link between objects considered to be in relationship with each other. An emotional experience cannot be conceived of in isolation from a relationship. The basic relationships that I postulate are (1) X loves Y; (2) X hates Y; and (3) X knows Y. These links will be expressed by the signs L, H and K. What realization may exist to which these abstract links, L, H and K, correspond? Suppose an imaginary situation of a type with which an analyst is familiar; the patient Smith is talking freely and is cooperative and friendly; in the course of his associations he mentions that he knows a certain psycho-therapist, Jones, who is a very stupid man and knows virtually nothing about psycho-analysis. The patient knows him well and has good reason, he says, to dislike him. He once treated a friend of his, Mr. May, with shocking results. His friend's marriage, which had always been harmonious until his friend took up treatment. … etc. Obviously this is a complex communication. There is a link between the patient and the analyst; there are various links between the patient and the psycho-therapist, between patient and his friend, between the patient and his friend's analyst. For the link between the patient and analyst there is direct evidence. With regard to the patient's report of the other links the evidence is mostly indirect although the direct evidence which the session affords could be used, if thought desirable, to supplement the patient's own statements. The patient says he knows Jones. Is this to be recorded as Smith K Jones? He says he dislikes Jones. Should it be Smith H Jones? The patient says “his friend” Mr. May. Should this then be Smith L May? Or is there some previous material in the analysis, or some manner or intonation that suggests a link, Smith L Mrs. May? But perhaps there is some material that suggests there is a homosexual relationship between Smith and Mr. May? There need be no end to the questions stimulated by an imaginary episode or limit to the number of answers for each question. But it is hardly less true to say just that about a real session. Yet on the answers to the questions, which the analyst begins to entertain, will depend his interpretation of the direct evidence of the nature of the transference. It may seem, since the analytic situation is complex, that there can be no merit in recording it by one of three simple signs. Admitting that the sign is to express only one part of the emotional experience, the link, does not the imaginary episode show that either the signs, L, H and K, conceal a complex link which may have endless varieties under a sign of misleading simplicity, or, that they define a link with a degree of rigidity which makes their applications to a real analytical situation a hopeless falsification?
There is no reason for either of these alternatives to be true; the signs can be related to fact in a way that saves them from becoming meaningless symbols and can at the same time be sufficiently abstract to ensure that they are generally and not merely accidentally applicable to real emotional situations.
The analyst must allow himself to appreciate the complexity of the emotional experience he is required to illuminate and yet restrict his choice to these three links. He decides what the linked objects are and which of these three represents with most accuracy the actual link between them.
如果个案是友善的，联结可以用L 表示。这不是一个充分的表征，因为记录转移关系状态是必须的。在此我的意思是依照我之前建议的系统(本书第49 页第6节)记录转移关系。
If the patient is friendly the link can be represented by L. It is not an adequate representation because it is necessary to record the state of the transference. I save the trouble of saying what I mean by that by recording transference in accordance with the system I suggested earlier (p. 40, para. 6).
我们将可看出，使用HKL 迫使分析师建立会谈的“关键”(“key”），这与使用它们来记录情绪经验不一样；也就是说，对于己知的发生的事，这种用法绝非提供完整的解释。但它引入了一种元素，在任何令人满意的纪录系统(亦即，工作的工具)中，这种元素都是不可或缺的一部分。总结来说，像K 这样一个情绪片断，是一个不完整的纪录，但却是一个分析师思索的好起点。在此观点下，我所描绘的系统，虽然粗造又天真，却是一个记号系统一一事实的纪录以及操作的工具一一不可或缺的基础。
It will be seen that the use of HKL, to force the analyst to establish the “key” of the session is not the same as using it to record an emotional experience; that is to say it is a usage that provides a less than full account of what is known to have happened. But it introduces an element that must be an essential part of any recording system before that system can be regarded as satisfactory, namely the working tool. To sum up an emotional episode as K is to produce an imperfect record but a good starting point for the analyst's speculative meditation. In this respect the system I have sketched out, despite its crudity and naivety, possesses the rudiments of the essentials of a system of notation—record of fact and working tool.