The intolerant beginning with annihilating thought; then they muddying adjectives, verb, is kidnapped and, ultimately, go to the subject BERTOLT BRECHT the ideological crisis (end of the illusion that something must be done by others); the economic crisis (huge cost of outpatient treatment); the crisis of representativeness of the analysts in the society; they endanger the psychiatric reform as a whole and push, not only to the biologist response, but towards the schizophrenia solution. Now, do we have the analysts an alternative psychoses response?. If you have read about Senator of Massachusetts already – you may have come to the same conclusion. We are accustomed to a series of formulas: there is no unconscious, there is no object, there is no choice of object, no name – the-father, there is no symbolization. All negative phrases. Freud has brought an understanding of psychoses, a series of causal hypotheses, but with an honesty that honors him, concluded: ‘Psychoanalysis with psychotic patients is not possible’. (Another negative formula). What to do then when we accept in? does our inquiry, public or private, to a patient that we have forbidden entry access to the fruits of the analysis? The truth is that everytime I encounter a psychotic animated with my analyst desire, desire for opening of the unconscious, there where the unconscious has been rejected; with a technique and a frame that will be continuously brutalized; each time that a meeting is set (it isn’t always) happens something there that interrogates the theory. Psychosis raises many questions.
I chose one of them for titling this presentation: Who directs the cure in psychoses?. It is a trick question, since who directs the cure is always the same: the desire of the analyst. The analyst, not his desire. The question I ask is: what desire brings into play the psychosis in the place of the analyst?, there where no longer worth the happy formula: the opening of the unconscious desire.