This paper is intended to address a problem that has been haunting me for two years and which has confused me, disgusted me and castrated me. Last July, I had a discussion with Lin Chiu (not in the soybeans, but in the forest) about what is an analyst -- how can I be an analyst and how can I be an analyst? And then I went all the way, and I was confined to the limits of thought and vision, and the domination of industry. Two weeks ago I concluded my personal analysis, and the previous days I happened to know Dr. Wu, and I asked him about the "end of analysis" and the "purpose of analysis". On the basis of their inspiration and my own reflection, I write this. In fact, this article is my recent months of suture and collage, low-handedness and confusion. Tubimamba's Psychiatry for Psychiatry has made a series of criticisms at a broader and stronger level. It is important to note that what I have discussed - just as the worst psychoanalysts and their practitioners have done - concentrate on the realm of neurosis. I lack experience in clinical practice, and I look forward to the publication of Dr. Wu's second book, Ethics of Psychoanalytical Analysis, which shows us clinical practices that differ from those spoken by the country's Hodorian peers.
I will try to discuss "the end of the analysis", which will lead to two outcomes: first, the end of the analysis does not exist because of its privacy; and second, the birth of the analyst will be deconstructed as an entire trick. When the analysis is destroyed, we will discuss analysts as a career.
Conclusion of analysis
The concluding discussion of the analysis needs to go back to its purpose. The purpose of the analysis is always to go into mysticalization in endless severing and transformations, saying "helping to construct a personal history", saying "aware that the great others do not exist", saying "to speak the truth about unconsciousness", saying "to make them rise to their own desires", saying "to modify basic illusions" and saying "to cross illusions". But we all know that they do not have such a good position, nor are they so radical. Thus, in their coercion, they interpreted the words as follows: "Let the analysts live in the way they like and accept." We really don't know whether they're trying to tame a living individual (although he was expecting "not normality" and "not reality test") or to create a Nietzsche superman by listening to and speaking limited words (he takes on all his desires so he can't see the big others)! In short, we can be sure that they do not intend to place analysts on the escape line - after all, they need an "end".
The key to the legitimacy of psychoanalysis lies in the treatment of the symptoms (and not just the symptoms, by which they are able to distance themselves from many other genres), but the question is, what exactly is the problem, or which is what is called by psychoanalysis? If the roots of this problem lie in the creation of a mad society itself, why is the psychoanalyst being dealt with (end) in its analysis room?
And if this problem is related to the constituent deficit of the subject, which comes from the real world, then the purpose of the psychiatric analysis mandated by the subject is "in the course of the analysis, we turn our imagination to the use of things that determine the absolute difference between the subject and the other subject, that is, his symptoms. According to Lacon's final statement, the symptoms at the end of the treatment... - The sacrament is the point where the symptoms are reduced to absolutes, and it is equivalent to the subject's proprietary terminology." But what does that really mean? Are you going to produce a desire superman on the recoil of the analysis room? Sitting next to the couches in the closed analysis room, the analysts, by listening, speaking and charging, are strikingly and thoroughly addressing the problem of the constituent deficit of individual human subjects? On the contrary, there is no such thing as missing. The term "desirment" is "deprived" - not to say, an effect and a misperception of the flow of desire over individuals. The gap between requests and responses is always asymmetrical and cannot always be bridged. The premise of the existence of this gap necessarily requires, first and foremost, a demand to be thrown - which is caused by the movement of desire. Thus, rather than being a response to this fact and in a campaign to bridge this gap, it is more because of such a movement of desire that the gap has been identified. Life is therefore abundant, not want, and desire is "not content to have" rather than "not to have".
In other words, the end of the psychoanalytical "does not exist". The aim of the psychoanalytical analysis is also "not to be unconscious, but to face an unknown future, and to move towards the future does not require a full understanding of one's own and history (Uk Yi), but rather to transform, liberate one's own self, develop and generate life (the path is precisely one in which countless people, numerous disciplines, countless ideas seek to explore, so that the psychoanalytical analysis must not be exhausted in its own field, but should continue to go outside). Ignorance is improbable, and personal history can never be combed and deconstructed by simple clinical analysis. To go further, in the face of the flow of life that continues to be generated, rational awareness and understanding are only secondary. While the truth of the subject can be constructed with the impetus of clinical analysis, psychological analysis is beyond the surface of the world. In fact, Lacon's exploration and discourse are not in fact false, even close to the movements of Druze and Qatar. The problem is that the assertion and adherence to a stable, regular, long-term clinical framework will deal with the symptoms thoroughly, not so much with the logic of analysis as with that of business. This is a question of an endless analysis, or, in the case of a large number of nervous groups, an ethical question: how to hold on to one ' s desires, how to develop one ' s life and how to move towards its absolute differences. Psychiatry analysis should define two types of analysis: clinical analysis and extraclinical analysis. The latter is in fact life practice, whereas the former is merely created by the latter and used as one of the incentives for the latter. That's what I'm talking about.
The birth of an analyst
(This part returns to July last year)
It is often stated at home: "Only the end of the analysis can become an analyst. "Here is the doubt: we will find that many of France's highly respected analysts were already in operation before the end of the analysis, including Kiele Jofey and Damien Guyone, as we know them well. All we can hear in Laconna is a changing and very vague description of the "end of analysis" and simply claims that it may "create the desire of analysts".
I don't think we should forget the simple and powerful story that Gile Tefie said at the moment when he became an analyst (which he pointed out was after he was "practiced" as an analyst): "What we call a psychoanalyst exists only because of a transfer. He's like anyone else." Perhaps analysts are created not when they speak to them as analysts, but when the transfer relationship coincides with the "place of analysts". Analysts are always "afterward".
However, the constant emphasis on the length of the analysis within the psychoanalytical system leads us to doubt that the so-called "end of the analysis" is merely a money-sharing mechanism in collusion with the "training analysis" system. The Chengdu Psychoanalytic Centre, for example, is an analytical requirement
2. Completion of personal analysis: individual analysis must be performed at the centre ' s analyst for more than five years and the analyst and analyst agree to complete the analysis
3. At least once a week in each of the two supervisory analysts or analysts each year.
The training system is very different from the radicalization of Raconian self-advocacy, and instead brings to mind the institution IPA, which is highly criticized by the Raconian. Such a system could lead to a dramatic crisis: the painless were forced to analyse in order to "be an analyst" and, even if the analyst had intended to leave, to force himself to say in the analysis space for a "five-year" certification, even if it was contrary to what he said. I will leave this for discussion in part three.
Some voices in the country are resonating, and it is powerful: if you are to become an analyst, you must be "trained" in personal analysis. The certainty is settled here. - Here we have reason to wonder whether this is a "training" or a "certification". "Analysts" have never been a skill of teaching, transmission, a place, a desire.
Look at Anna Shane's words - "psychological analysis is not a technology to be learned through learning theory, through personal training and through demonstration." After analysis, former analysts may wish to pursue analysis as a profession or may wish to do something else."
At the national level, analysts have become a profession, "If you want to be analysts, you have to be trained in personal analysis". This coincides with Anna Shane's assertion that psychoanalysis is not "choice before training". Psychiatry becomes an industry, and analysts become a product - we know exactly what "industry" means in the context of capitalism.
We must ask whether such an infallible practice as "analyzing for the purposes of analysis", for the purposes of analysis, is "getting nothing" or " getting the pain created by the framework of analysis"? In a rigid system like this, is it an unconscious truth, or is it an imaginary scheme of conspirators and analysts? How can an action against mental distress, an action against power and an order go to a "certification"? It must not be forgotten that, whether the "non-clinical analysis" defended by Freud, or the "divisive analysis" promoted by Droz Ghattari, is the key and only how life should be carried out. If psychoanalyticals are bound to move towards a certification and to an industry that "takes the analysis in order to be an analyst", we would be better able to claim that not to be an analyst can also be an analyst. Psychiatry is not an interesting theory, nor is it the "dinning meals" of "professionals" (not on the couch, but on the table) of "professionals" (which can now point particularly to degrees). Psychiatry is an ethics of life and desire, not the food of monopolies, capitalists and dogs.
"The rivalry and rivalry among analysts are as brutal as the struggle between any other group of human beings."
There is no precise and stable link between analysis and being an analyst, as opposed to such linkages. Opposing such an ideology did not mean denying certain facts, but merely breaking a shadow between the two.
iii. As professional analysts
Let us go back last July and come out of that anger, confusion and conservatism: there is no "end of analysis" and there is no "birth of analysts". Analysts are created by the position of analysts, i.e., the position of void, divided, able to carry the desire of analysts, and the position of self-detached. Thus, rather than being the result of a clinical analysis of water to canals, it is rather an ethical gesture - an adventure of total respect for life and desire and of the willingness to take on the desire of analysts.
This reminds us of the ridiculous gestures of some of the most conservative analysts, who claim to be better at dealing with "neurological problems such as emotional crisis, emotional problems, self-identification" and, in fact, far removed from mental health structures. This is a matter of course, because these professional analysts (professional analysts, who seek to profit from clinical analysis - let alone from theoretical training in psychoanalytical analysis) do not intend to take any risk at all, but simply seek and hunt for their long-term meal tickets by profiting from their qualifications in the analytical framework. There is no need for a detailed discussion of this issue, because it is actually the ethical issue of "love your neighbour" that Freud and Lacon discussed. I just want to throw out such a hypocritical reality that exposes professional analysts: When you use the analytical fees obtained from analysts as a source of economic resources and as a pillar of life, where is the risk to say, and where is the compassion of "hope for analysts to end as soon as possible and leave themselves"?
Yes, the system of occupational analysis is a San Trinity, a high-intensity framework for reproduction: high income, analytical threshold, analytical framework. Clinical analysis frameworks are regular, stable, enabling analysts to collect high and stable revenues as a recognized fact, and it is also agreed that being an analyst must accept "clinical analysis" for a certain period of time and that only "clinical analysis" can "be an analyst". In the face of such a Holy Trinity, the hypocrisy/love of those who want to help others, the unwitting beliefs and obsessions, and the fierce inducements of capital, the economy, always constitute an inducement to analysts to "analyst desires". And when they're brainwashed and castrated for years, the law is being publicized. And we see this in clinical cases - one of which is persuasion, the other of which is that some people have "intentional" but have no "conscious" to think about. Today, psychoanalytical analysis is increasingly becoming a framework for painful reproduction rather than one of the ways to explore possibilities.
In the face of such a Holy Trinity, flexible time, flexible fees as a pathetic dual structure have almost lost all effect. In order to reshape the ethics of psychoanalysis, we need to introduce the third element of flexibility: flexible talks. Flexible talks mean stripping off that stable and regular system of commodity exchanges and thoroughly respecting the desires of analysts. The absence of rigid frameworks will reduce the likelihood that analysts will rely on analysts and, similarly, avoid internal political and economic reproduction of psychoanalyses. At the same time, this action has actually led to the decline of clinical/psychological analysis from an overly high position.
So far, it is not that everyone can be an analyst, but, on the contrary, it is impossible for some to become an analyst even if they accept it. Therefore, I do not intend to completely reject the term "clinical analysis only" but simply to rephrase it and completely delete the word "clinical" before the word "analysis". What exactly is the location of the analyst? The location of the analyst is one that enables the subject to "traffic" with its own desires. Therefore, it is merely a possibility of "failure" in life.
In an extreme and arbitrary simplification, we may wish to place the symptoms of life as perhaps the structural effect of life for certain reasons in a manner similar to error, failure or short-circuit, so we need to suffer. New ideas, amazing literature, words that cannot be said, words that have not been heard, completely different people, strange situations, even states that have not been experienced (unacceptable slacks, complete boredom, resistance to anxiety, acceptance - not submissive - action) will create a variety of links to these various experiences, thus transforming ourselves. Ideas, actions, everything can be inserted, disrupted, subverted, recreated, and everything can change unconsciously. The analysis will therefore never be paralysed on its couch, and it must and needs to drive life out of the world forever and indefinitely. If it's an analysis, then it's just a flow of power called analysis.
In addition, attention needs to be paid to the dangers of "disease" "drugs" and "treatment", which in practice are always "standardized" in terms of how to find objective, indisputable and optimal solutions, and where life goes in the same orbit. But the problem is not here at all, and people are said to be "sick", not "sick". People are simply sleepy, powerless and painful to look to their own memory and imagination of the past. This is therefore an ethical issue. When people walk into psychiatric clinics, wards or consultation rooms, treatment rooms, analysis rooms, they ask, "My desires are blocked for some reason/for some reason, how should my life proceed?" Drugs and discourse should not be excluded, but rather, what needs to be done is to re-establish other excluded things and to create things that are not included or even produced in this area.
Editor
The words of Silmo pushed me from my passive position. Yes, there are too many myths around us, and we hold these truths to rest in our ears, expecting an empty alternative to give me a secure seat.
There is no "scientific" and there is no "analyst", and we have to walk our own way. Analysis, psychoanalytic analysis, or so-called "analytical" are just our crutches, throwing it away, retreating muscles will recover, and we will eventually be able to return to our children, and the explosive power of our calves will cause us a bump.
[P4 Theater and You] have recently published a number of critical articles on the dilemmas and problems encountered in practice in the process of psychoanalytic Chineseization, hoping that more practitioners will come to express their first-hand feelings, and we are particularly willing to organize them for publication (there will be no censorship or rejection). We have also organized ourselves a "cartel group exchange" to welcome outputs, share, collide with knowledge that belongs to you yourself and form teams, and the authors of this paper are also in the group. (The group is now full.
@Ambassador: #Jan25
What's a "scientific" to the EPS Psychoanalytical Society?
Incidents Criticism: "Student Double Standards -- Analysis of the Written Committee ' s Reasons for Refusal"
"The Growing Angers in Neurosis and Psychiatry."
Foreseeable crises.