Posted by nellie7 on June 17, 2009, at 14:45:15
In reply to Re: Lacan, posted by Sigismund on June 16, 2009, at 15:22:45
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:nellie7
thread:900447
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20090614/msgs/901552.html