DINA SERRA
wanted to start by saying that our work was very good lineup and allowed to make each meeting with my colleagues very productive space for discussion and reading. No pretentious goals emerged different questions, different authors, new approaches to the subject and other suggested readings that were cut according to the interests of the group and then watching as the particular interests of each. Similarly was a long process where we work hard not without mixed emotions.
The theme of the analytical device was interesting because it is placed directly in relation to concerns about the profession in question how can deal with psychoanalysis. Therefore, it seemed important to work this way through the device to exit sign "concern" to create a movement to allow me to think of accompanying a clinical approach, which meant rather "deal" implies, appropriating this space research. There is certainly something of desire put there.
Among my concerns I was wondering how to do to articulate what worked over different years of passing by the faculty, the perspectives of different authors or teachers, different theoretical guidelines, etc., And everything that makes possible the formation, which I mean not merely to college, but other areas and activities that are outside. All with the goal of being able to think myself as an analyst, I think I could find the same question correctly the answer: "the self must be out."
try to go through reading several elements that helped us to think such a device because although we know that there are no recipes or techniques are subject to "management" of the analysis is a rigorous practice subject to certain guidelines of the analyst. This is where your desire comes into play as a guide for the reluctance to go.
Psychoanalysis is a practice of speech within a device where the analyst is to act as a mirror of Lacan empty words, to leave out everything that matches your individual and enable the emergence of the subject of the unconscious that manifests itself in action, so that the word emerge demands. This is the very nature evanescent realizes his ethics. In the analysis of knowledge is waiting, always ahead, located on the side of the analysand, and comes into play when we talk.
I think there is confusion when you believe that psychoanalysis will know where, "Psychoanalysis as all other human activities undoubtedly part of the abuse." [1]
It acts as if it knew something when truly knows is the analysand, the analyst stay away from subject to theory, is placed in a position allowing subject supposed to know the dynamics of transfer of unconscious connection to the unconscious, where free association is started with the objective of not rejecting any occurrence of inappropriate or irrelevant it may seem, according to the fundamental rule, and available as an analyst to expect the emergence of something on the order of truth that can be enacted within this framework, and examine the subject, involved in the question about "what it says," about what he wants. "
It seems necessary to understand what order the analysis is the handling of transference, and the analyst who supports and lends itself to the transfer function is provided, while knowing that the place of the subject supposed to know that fall is attributed to complete the scan.
The analyst's desire is a yearning, and is the analyst who responds to the transfer as desire, which only works well in the context of an analysis. These are all objectives proposed in the preliminary interviews.
is this desire that leads the analysis because it allows the analyst to hold the floating attention that is not attending to anything, but rather allow this as something of a surprise, because it is not important but the content of speech hesitations, scansion, a cut or rupture, that is available to hear significant differences.
is necessary to distinguish what is said at the analyst meeting, not to be confused with his person, not attribute it, and this is hampering work to get involved exposing himself.
This is what neutrality or distance that the analyst must maintain what is meant by "being in function, acting in each analysis without preconceptions and without regard to their own significant.
It is clear that the analyst as subject and object put in place because the analysis there is one subject at stake: the analysand that is its result, its effect.
important thing then is to act against each new case as unique, not lend itself to generalizations.
Of course it is also necessary to consider what is meant conceptually by contratranferencia (what has worked well as resistance to the analyst) is a noise in floating attention, the breaks, the alteration, which should not overplaying no analyst overlooked because it is a phenomenon that is necessary to question and be taken to their own analysis. According to Luis Vicente Miguelez [2] "analysis is something that matters to the singular, specific to each analyst, what makes something effective role is that he may work on their involvement in each analysis. The unique art with which we have not relieve us of what we think conceptually spontaneously. "
Each analysis is different and unique, as every analyst is a different deal with each patient, even though it is the same analyst. It can bring into play similar theoretical positions among professionals, while retaining his own style. It is always unique experience.
the other hand I find it interesting to rescue the differences between certain words can make, that although in many cases are used interchangeably in the discourse of power, deserves to be clarified. The analyst can intervene in various ways in an analysis, but not all of them are understood as interpretations or constructions. That is a scansion or court session is active disruption of the analyst that makes a score in the sequence of what is said and consequently deepens the analyzing you hear about their say in a subsequent session. It achieves an effect of meaning that comes after that score, but it is not an exclusive meaning or significance, but gives the following sentence because it should not be saturated. It is also why we can not hold a fixed-term analysis in advance, this being very important for an analysis will be completed.
An intervention is then directed to an individual decides to talk and get involved in what he says. We could say that interventions can be made outside of the transfer, as suggested by M. Colovini "not necessarily part of the analytic act, you can prepare or result of that." [3]
think differently from the interpretation that the analyst is one that can not be left out of the transfer that can be enabled by certain interventions.
It is also understood by Freud as one undertaken with a single element of material: an occurrence, a failed operation, and so on. " [4] also considered to test the correctness of the interpretation is that bring the subject material to confirm or respond to a similar partnership involving the contents of the building, yet not in all cases.
Freud argues that some of the most reliable corroboration by the analysand are: "I had never crossed your mind," or "never thought of it."
A construction involves the presentation instead the subject of a piece of forgotten history. Anyway, a construction can be seen as right or wrong only during the passage of analysis and is considered only as a conjecture according to Freud.
Still no intervention by the analyst should look like a simple act of intuition and that although the interpretations are not designed or prepared does not mean you do not have theoretical yet make them recipes to follow.
Finally it seems important to understand that psychoanalysis is not taught, is transmitted, which is why there are no rules or steps to follow, despite the fact that Freud often reflected in his writings about an attempt to regulate or make laws for analytical device deployment. It is just be there and ready to listen and their equivalent in the patient, ie that the production of a novel, the exercise of the full speech. Lacan expresses it in a formula in the seminar 11: " art of listening well is equal to the mean. " [5]
is therefore clear that psychoanalysis is a praxis that does not have to be understood as a standard practice, but does not mean that agency analyst who reflect on their work, the consequences of his act and carry forward its own analysis.
[1] Lacan, J. "Opening of the Clinical Section, Page 42, Editorial Paidós.
[2] MIGUELEZ, LV, "Space Ectopic countertransference," in III Latin American Meeting of the States General of Psychoanalysis.
[3] COLOVINI, M. "Devices and Interventions", April, 1997.
[4] FREUD, S. "Constructions in Analysis" 1937, Page 262, Volume XXI, Editorial Amorrortu, Buenos Aires, 1979.
[5] Lacan, J. "The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, Seminar XI, Chapter X, page 129, Editorial Paidós, Year 1987.
0 comments:
Post a Comment