The denied one usually implies some type of contextual modification, in which somebody stays invested as assistant with I so that this one maintains to another one like ideal, or to itself like identical model. The I-pleasure that denies prevails by this type of logic, in which it dominates view and ear. Two general explanations fit. First I in relation to the defense talk about to the paper of. The fact that execute I it does not imply a decision necessarily, an election. Perhaps I am better to consider I eat agent, like the place in which certain transactions between different forces happen, transactions that he executes. Therefore, I am put in the situation to unfold the defense, and that one is one of its functions. The other explanation talks about that the defense opara essentially against the judgment related to the perception and not as much against the precepcin in himself.
In summary, in the denied one we will see that the defense is before the traumatizante judgment related to a perception; the way to be realised is the rejection of the judgment outside I, and I make an effort to refute it. The substitute formation is the positioning of an assistant, arisen from criteria based on the closeness and the analogy, to cover the lack. The destiny of that one before which the defense arises is to pass to another one I, split; the destiny than is put as substitution is to pass a to be sinister. The structure that generates the defense is the purified I-pleasure (on definitive real I); the development of determining affection is the feeling of destruction of the purified I-pleasure. Freud (1919) emphasizes the constitution of a double (ideal) as omnipotent reinsurance before the feeling of destruction of sinister arises I It as a result of the effort (failed) to maintain a bond of primary identification by means of the denied one, supery arises when the illusion takes step to a deception.