Psychoanalytic training is essential,
and virtually never-ending. However, an analyst should develop faith in the
speech more than confidence in his/her skills
In psychoanalysis we (as analysts) see
well that the operator (what makes the analysis possible) is the speech, more
than the psychoanalyst.
In the psychoanalytic conversation, an
analysand talks to an analyst. However, a psychoanalyst should be aware that
s/he is not the final addressee of the analysand’s communication, and so the
analyst is not simply supposed to answer.
A psychoanalyst is called to occupy a
position that is not always gratifying (Freud assimilated the figure of the
analyst to the surgeon whose only concern is for the operation s/he has to
execute), and still is determined to hold that position and carry on the
analysis.
A person who believes him/herself a
psychoanalyst is a fool. A (speech) act is defined as psychoanalytic only by
the effects it produces
A person who believes him/herself a
psychoanalyst is a fool. One can be a psychoanalyst only if there is Other
Saying "analyst's discourse"
or even "psychoanalytic discourse" is hilarious; in fact, they are
both paradoxical. The psychoanalyst should have no discourse at all. Similarly,
psychoanalysis functions well as analysis of a discourse, but it is not a
discourse itself. Psychoanalysis emphasizes the speech over the discourse.
A person who believes him/herself a
psychoanalyst is a fool. One can be a psychoanalyst only if there is Other.
A person who believes him/herself a
psychoanalyst is a fool. "Psychoanalyst" describes a position in a
discourse, not an academic degree or an expertise
* I first presented these few considerations on my Facebook/Twitter pages. You are invited to follow me (Diego Busiol)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento