Schreber and “homo-sexuality”. Freud explains paranoia as the consequence of repressed homosexual fantasies; he then emphasize the “sexual” part of the term homo-sexuality. Conversely, Lacan suggests that homosexuality is a consequence of paranoia; he then insists on the “homo” part of the term, meaning the relation with the similar person or the specular image.

In psychosys the speech produces dissociation or splitting (in the real) rather than cut or division (in the symbolic registry). Can we then say that there is sexuality in psychoses?

Various reflections arising from my practice

Explanations

In psychoanalisys one should avoid to give explanations. Either they are accepted or rejected (which is different than saying they are "correct" or "wrong") most likely they will only produce more resistance. Explanations operate at the level of the Ego.

To "explain" comes from "to make plain, to level, flatten". Indeed, full explanations (if anything like this exist) clear the question, flatten any doubts, speculations or curiosity. Consequence of a good explanation is that "there is nothing more to say". Conversely, the psychoanalytic experience shows that important is to continue speaking, telling, questioning, coming to new associations.

 ‪‎Imaginary

Imaginary is not where ‪‎neurosis begins. Impossible the life without fantasy. Neurosis is the ‪‎fixation of some specific fantasy

Anorexic-bulimic

‪‎Anorexic wants one thing: nothing. It is different from not wanting anything.

‪‎Bulimics eat anything, only to see that nothing is valuable. Nothing makes the difference

Why me?

Some say "Why me?" Is a typical jewish question. Asking "why me" has to do not just with one's own representation (e.g. the elected people; the culprit; etc) but most importantly with whom lies in the place of the Other. Often times this is a God, meaning it is to a God this question is frequently addressed to

Christ was the first to ask "Why (have you abandoned) me?". Then, this question has a different nuance and different relevance for Jewish and for Christians.

In the Old Testament, the story of Job beautifully presents some elements of the depressive discourse. To begin with, the search for meaning

Knowledge

It is a common experience that academic learning kills curiosity and creativity. The huge amount of information one has to study rarely provide new clues or ideas or bring to formulate further questions; after studying one easily feels full of knowledge but emptied of creative thinking and unable to make use of that knowledge. Instead, psychoanalysis proceeds by way of association, by combinatorial logic, by following the ambiguity of the signifier; it does not operate by way of explanation or clarification, but still there are effects of understanding. And this brings to new associations, new thoughts, new ideas, new questions.

Gaining ‪‎knowledge is not what support or enhance the ‪‎desire and rarely produce a ‪‎change in ‪‎psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis is not about factual (or philosophical, or logical) truth. Nevertheless, it is about truth.

How does psychoanalysis work? This question can be approached in many ways. For example, we can say that psychoanalysis works by changing linkers (e.g. whereas, therefore, despite) and connectors (e.g. although, but, because) among sentences

Contrary to psychology and psychotherapy, in psychoanalysis no academic certificates/titles can guarantee the goodness of our practice

Psychoanalysis is not a religion and does not require to be a "believer". Quite on the contrary, an analysis proceeds from uncertainties

* I first presented these few considerations on my Facebook/Twitter pages. You are invited to follow me (Diego Busiol)

Psychoanalyst

• 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)

Mourning

• Mourning shows that nothing is dead and that things do not come to an end. Mourning indicates the immortal.

• Mourning indicates the itinerary, or the process, rather than locations or destinations.

• Avoidance of mourning leads to see things as dead or perishable: all can be damaged or contamined; all come to an end; places are dead.

• Mourning shows that the death cannot be represented as the end. Mourning indicates the immortal psychoanalysis

• In this interesting study, gamblers were described as having "unresolved issues, which in the current sample appeared to be exacerbated by the lack of opportunities for grieving, be it due to self-imposed standards, social expectations, or an overload of responsibilities". In particular, "several participants were found to have an inclination toward dismissing losses and/or minimizing the impact of losses". Even though the common sense would suggest that people gamble for winning, this research showed that "gambling outcomes were often found to be of little if any significance to the respondents, and winnings were frequently of minimal import or their value was short lived" and that "the main issue was not ignorance of gambling odds, but rather emotional struggles". Then, is gambling aiming at losing? Is the gambler repeating a (unresolved) loss?

* I first presented these few considerations on my Facebook/Twitter pages. You are invited to follow me (Diego Busiol)