The Act We Call Psychoanalyst Part 1 - Petros Patounas [ENG SUB]

The interview between Petros Patounas and Georgia Nathanael about the "The Act We Call Psychoanalyst", took place at the premises of the School of the Freudian Letter, Cyprus on the 2nd of August 2018.

[Budapestpatiypami]

I've been watching the video and I found it very interesting. With some things I strongly agree. Specially the "cleptomaniac" guy explanation, and the last part of the video speaking about desire. I also really liked what he said about how good variety is in psychoanalysts. To be as brief as possible, I will not elaborate on them, and I will write the points on which I either disagree or think I did not understand well. I am sorry for the long comment and also that english is not my native language.

Petros has spoken about psychotherapies, which have rules and regulations. It could be understood that (by default) psychoanalysis does not have them either. Lacanian psychoanalysis has a rule: that the person speaks. Free association. Not because it is evident it ceases to be a norm. There are also others related to the flexibility of the session time, the payment and the analyst's limits to certain sayings or actions of the patient.

He also spoke about the position of the Master. It is true that the analyst cannot settle into knowledge, that makes it psychotherapy, but it was not clear to me if it is taken into account that the Subject Supposed Knowing has to be established for the transference to operate. That is, the analyst does not believe in the position of knowing, but he has to do something of a semblance because the patient does, and this establishes the transfer of work. In fact, we could say that at the end of an analysis the Subject Assumed Knowing falls.

I am not sure if I understood what Petros means when he talks about the analyst in the object position. In Lacanian-oriented psychoanalysis it is clear that the analyst has to occupy the position of object a (cause of desire). So, somehow, he should be in an object position. Of course he is in that position not to allow the analysand to enjoy it, nor to satisfy his demands, but he does occupy it. Likewise, the position of "object a" is that of the residue, this means that when the patient has reached what he needs, he will abandon the analyst precisely as "object a", as residue.

Finally, psychopathological knowledge and structures in psychoanalysis are not to be blinded by them. But they represent a knowledge that can be used (always to forget about it in session). The sessions and the patients are always, as Petros says, one by one. But not necessarily a guide on structures is always wrong. There are certain interpretations that do not have at all the same resonance in the psychotic structure as in the neurotic one. What I want to say is that the good thing about Lacan is that the different aspects of his teaching do not cancel each other out.

I hope that this long comment can contribute something to the debate. Many thanks to the person who subtitled the video and to Petros and the interviewer.

[DemetriosNavras]

19:18 There are psychoanalysts who work form the position of the Master and because they went through the Psychoanalytic procedure, they have an intense narcissism and say "he has a lot to work on, there is too much depth". They are talking about the unconscious as if it is a pit.
Lacan said that the unconscious is in front of you that is why he explained it with topology meaning: whatever is inside, it is also outside. It is with what the analysand says now that we make interventions and we do not have to go back and talk about the mother and the father. Should he want to go back and talk about mother and father, it will of course be connected with the now; but we do not have to dig deep, and do that thing step by step etcetera.
If they say that he is resisting, me personally i would never go to such a Psychoanalysis, why would he have resistances? Are we going to argue like the teachers and the students? where teachers are talking bad about the students performance, whereas, a student said, it is them who do not know how to teach, and not we...
Something Lacan said: When there are resistances in Psychoanalytic Sessions, it is not the Analysand's fault, it is the Analyst who is responsible for such a thing. And when there are resistances, it is a point that, whether he is a teacher or analyst something comes from the teacher or analyst that is blocking the Analysand. Example: if i take in the session the position of knowledge, that i know everything etc the other person will not be able to speak. I have to be in the position that i don't know. It the the Analysand who will provide the material and i will position myself accordingly.