[The-Lacanalyst] As a temporary conclusion

[Aviva Euripides]

I think I am approaching this in a different way and over the years I have
I think realized the necessity for this.

As an American practicing in America I do not think I can
singlehandedly bring a French concept/praxis to America and I think we risk
losing the whole thing if we try to do so.  In my opinion it is too much to
risk.

After watching Jacques Siboni tirelessly bring the 4 analytic positions to
the US and watching the audience's systematic rejection I became aware that
it is not WHAT we present but the WAY we present it that might matters here
due to a different sensibility around efficacy and value.  I think we need
to start with the topological proofs.  Many Americans are well aware of the
lack of efficacy of what they are sold in CBT, DBT, ERP, EBT.  But it is
counterintuitive for them to look outside this entire framework.  They can
and do, but I think of the preliminary sessions as working with this
counterintutiveness in addition to the other parts of it.  If you give some
Americans this space they run with it.

Most significantly, the position of the analyst is on an "edge" as Jacques
Siboni notes.  We are not always in it, it is for what we strive.  As a
licensed clinician in the US (with zero interest in Psychology) I can try
to afford a home, food, life with my education, training and experience.
Most of my patients I see via their insurance in agency settings.  About
1/3 of my work has been private practice and there about 50 percent of
patients still utilize insurance or health savings accounts (as defined by
the IRS) to reimburse themselves.  Without insurance I would have about 10
patients maximum and could not economically survive.  Yet, because the
clinical work to me IS the attempt to be in the position of the analyst, I
would say I have about 15 patients at this time who are IN analysis as they
have decided to talk about themselves as a subject, usually after years of
preliminary sessions but certainly sooner in a few cases.

Rebecca Bauknight was my first contact in Lacanian work.  She noted that
there is always a trace, that transmission occurs via adaptations,
generations, specifications so that it extends forward and remains
relevant, renewing itself.  I so appreciate her, John Gasperoni, Kristopher
Litchanski and the Lutecium SF group she brought in headed by Jacques
Siboni, who taught many of us most of what we know of Lacan.  Jacques has
the courage and determination to bring Lacanalysis to the US and he
succeeded in my opinion.  Rebecca was able to bring together artists,
psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, thinkers.  She had her own
challenges but her ability to bring such a diverse, reflective group was
uncanny and also successful overall.

Lacanalysis is already here in the states.  It is molded in the
transmission here and I do not see the issue with that as it is the only
way we can attempt to occupy the position of the analyst here at all, which
is my goal.  I study with Jacques Siboni who basically has
singlehandedly taught me everything I know.  I have patients on a waiting
list wanting to do the kind of work I attempt to do.  I speak about Lacan,
use Lacanian terms and hold myself out as both a licensed clinician and a
Lacanlayst.  I work within the guidelines of my country and my state
license but I do not think that what I do is that far off from Lacanian
work.  I am currently talking to my private practice patients about the cut
and plan on using it in these sessions.  I could not earn a living with the
insurance sessions if I cut because the billing codes are based on
minutes.  I highlight the aspects of the cut under these circumstances with
patients and they understand the premise.

I am working with the brilliance of Quinn Foerch, another American, to work
as a Lacanalyst in America.  I think it is preferable to ground in the
rigor of the classical work but to have some space to breathe so that there
can be the transmission that is possible.  I will continue to occupy the
position of the analyst with my own circumstances as best I can and my
patients, most of whom I have been working with for years, seem to
appreciate this and move with it, flaws, imperfections and all.

Aviva

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 3:32 AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <
the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:

> Dear friend
>
> To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal
> vision.
> When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health
> department ask
> me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice
> analysis.
>
> Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I
> consider he is
> legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the
> process of
> preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
>
> If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major
> danger of
> being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear
> this. And
> Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm
> that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door
> mentioning
> "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have
> legal problems that's fine and great for me.
>
> This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's
> the reason
> why I tried to invent a counter measure.
>
> All the best my friend
>
> Jacques
>
>
> --
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/attachments/20251126/ace8daee/attachment-0003.htm>