Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 17, 2009, at 21:53:08
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by nellie7 on June 17, 2009, at 14:45:15
Nellie, did you mean actually psychotic or psychoanlaysis-psychotic, which is often a whole different beast? I mean, did you *actually* lose all touch with reality for more than a few hours or few minutes?
> Hi Sigismund,
>
> > I didn't understand heaps of what my T said but it was probably easy-peasy by comparison....I'm just talking about 'holding' and 'bits of me in you' kind of stuff (Winnicott, Mahler, Klein), which may (for all I know) refer to projective identification. Even that, though it has been explained to me many times, I fail to grasp and likely never will now, becoming more stupid by the year.
>
> Lacan is not meant to be understood. I think the approach attempts to promote confusion :) The "symbols" are probably meant to be understood subconsciously, and that can explain the uneasy feelings I had long before understanding what was said to me. The analyst's tone of voice contributed to this as well.
> Someone who writes the way you do cannot make a claim of stupidity :)
>
> > What I want to know is.....when you understood the code and went psychotic, is that an understanding available to you now?
>
> I am not sure I understood your question. If you meant to ask if I still understand the code the way I did while psychotic, the answer is yes.
>
> >Maybe that's how Lacan managed to get the sessions down to 10 minutes? Good news for all concerned?>
>
> Yes, perhaps :)
>
> Btw, you say that you didn't understand a lot of what your T said. How did that make you feel?
>
> Nellie.
>
>
>
>
poster:Amelia_in_StPaul
thread:900447
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20090614/msgs/901642.html