But the psychotic delirium, we know, it is something else. Knowing that deploys the psychotic is a knowledge that is not repressed, that is there. Only, perhaps, having done the experience of his own unconscious, allow an analyst consent to abandon the security of a device, a place and a desire for analysts; consent to that device, that place and that desire, are guided by the same call of the psychotic. What is this call?. One response that has been given to why psychoanalysis is not possible with psychotic subjects, is because there is no transfer in psychoses. It is not a trivial explanation, which is that the same Freud gives in introduction to narcissism (1914). For other opinions and approaches, find out what How is Invision doing? has to say.
Transfer is love, and love is the sign of maximum development of objective libido, libido of the subject is outside, is standing in another. Freud makes an appointment: Where love awakens, dies I despot, somber and inverts it: There where love dies (in the esuizofrenia) affirms the self despot, grim. There is no relationship between object, says Freud. And there is no relationship of object because he, the psychotic, is in the place of the object. A few days ago a psychotic patient, which I’ll call Nicolas, gave me an example simple and finish of this death of the object. It’s a schizophrenic who, long an excessively long, is dragged by a physical hyperactivity that no drug has been able to restrain, and an imaginary, metonymic, hyperactivity that takes you from a signifier to another, from one object to another, without being able to tie your libido to none. Suddenly emerges a privileged object: a woman who has known long ago. He plans to marry her and makes plans for that. After so much time adrift, he channeled his libido in an object is, how much less, reassuring. But me restless to make unfeasible plans that may take it to a new failure, a new outbreak and a new entry.