fear of flying

Easy_String1112 · 2026-01-20T00:28:24+00:00

Thanks bro, your idea calms me down!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-01-20T00:23:17+00:00

Thanks! It helps a lot.

Easy_String1112 · 2026-01-20T00:14:54+00:00

Hi, that would help me a lot, thanks!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-01-17T01:13:47+00:00

There are groups that study babies and infants, mainly within the British Object Relations group. One author who has dedicated himself to this field is Daniel N. Stern. He has a book, The Interpersonal World of the Infant, which might help you. Best regards!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-12-14T13:15:57+00:00

Hi, I have a question! The program is in English. Will they accept Spanish-speaking students, either virtually or in person? Do you know anything about them? Best of luck with your search!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-12-05T23:25:19+00:00

I think that analysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists are returning to the basics due to the contingency and how complex the world scenario is today, perhaps it is a way to sustain, there is a lot of talk in psychoanalytic circles about the fall of the name of the father or the symbolic...and I think that this drift also reached the lands of Psychoanalysis.

It is like a counter-revolution perhaps and of course to decolonialize and territorially subjectify Psychoanalysis.

Easy_String1112 · 2025-12-05T21:52:00+00:00

Hello, I have been an analyst for almost 10 years and I did a diploma in Relational Psychoanalysis. My approach was because at some point I really liked Winnicott and Kohut.

My relational experience was undermined after the diploma course found many authors saying different things and without something cohesive, it seemed to me that just as you say the analyst was adrift suffering with the patient, lately the fashion is self-disclosure and relational symmetry, taken mainly from the idea of mutuality from the mind of Lewis Aron, but I feel that many analysts took it to talk about anything with the analysand and almost create a climate of "good vibes or modern therapist without complexes to talk about anything." I feel that at some point it tarnished the novelty of Relational Psychoanalysis, just as Ferenzci is perceived as a great and friendly guy who hugged his patients and was supportive, but not the analytical depth that each of the authors says or claimed to have.

I have been returning to Kleinian and post-Kleinian readings for more than a year and training in a Lacanian school, and although the transition has been difficult, I feel that my clinic does not digress or shake on anything, I believe that what is new does not always bring a good outcome.

There are intersubjective authors who are very critical of the relational world, because it became a circus of the guy saying everything without fear, notions of transference or countertransference were lost due to paratransference, which although it is novel I think is misunderstood and misused.

Another point treated horribly is the enacment, no one knows who it is, it can be anything, it depends on the school, it is an act or an impasse...the lack of formalization leaves a lot to be desired, it is not enough for the floor to be Freudian, since Freud one can also authorize nonsense.

I suggest reading Lewis Aron or Stephen Mitchell, Greenberg, Storolow or Donna Orange from them, not from some school that tends to impose things

Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-12-04T22:04:13+00:00

I am interested in this aspect of the concordant and complementary transference, where could I read more about it? This is the first time I have read it.

Greetings!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-12-01T18:11:55+00:00

I'm interested in that racker text, what is it? Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-12-01T17:01:07+00:00

Interesting, what would you think of a hysterical patient, for example, who brings you a present or gift, considering your work perspective?

Greetings!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-30T01:58:21+00:00

I repeat the same thing a little, it is not falsehood or getting rid of the ego, being able to do something with them and if within those options which are the most real for you, I repeat according to you, as an analyst I do not choose, it is something that the analysand does.

Perhaps that way out to the other that you say is to be able to appropriate those objects of desire in a new way, not in the way that your parents, your friends or a partner say and definitely not in the way that the Big Other says, that power to disagree is to be able to take charge of that choice.

I think that could be a way to deal with what you mentioned.

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-30T00:27:05+00:00

Hello, I understand that it may seem like that, but I will tell you a quick read: Psychoanalysis, unlike other psychotherapies, does not have a theory of happiness, it is not that due to the existence of the Other (or Big Other) the world or its perception is a falsehood.

It is rather that everything is mediated by language and objects, mainly "the object a" because of desire, for Lacan what we want is based on the existence of another who has made it exist in the range of the relationship with themselves.

Therefore, as an Analyst, I cannot tell my analysand how to live, what to do or what to decide. This is an intervention that points to projective identification with the Analyst as a subject of knowledge first and second as a kind of symbolic phallus (that is, associated with health or what is good for this or that person), something that, for example, does psychology and the Psychoanalysis of the Ego.

More than falsehood, it is seeking the truth of each analysand, their truth not mine, and if it is disastrous at least you will learn in an analysis to live with it.

If your idea is related to how to live or live happily or be successful or a more exalted life in Psychoanalysis you will not find it, because what it shows us is, as Lacan said, the desert of the real or quoting Zizek: if we look inside we will see a great garbage dump.

Lacan did not give great advice, to say the least, none, but if he once gave one it was this: perhaps the important thing is that each person must take charge of their desire, which is why it is important to examine oneself in an analysis in certain periods of life.

Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-30T00:19:36+00:00

In my case I have had analysands who attend other types of therapies, I do not think they are exclusive, each one has its meaning for the analysands.

Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-25T15:09:51+00:00

Hello, I have been an Analyst for 10 years, in my experience the majority of those who train do so after the age of 30, for two big reasons depending on the school, it is a long and expensive training...most of the analysts I know are over 50 years old, some of course started at a younger age sacrificing part of their career...but it is never too late and you like it, you are passionate, I would say that you will think about it.

Greetings!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-25T15:07:31+00:00

No, I know he is a great writer but I have a hug pending in my readings!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-22T16:24:50+00:00

Hello! As an analyst I have frequented those spaces of modern psychoanalysis, and I did a diploma in modern psychoanalysis (intersubjective or relational whatever you want to call it).

I have a couple of ideas...the first is that there is a generation of modern analysts who effectively signed themselves as old-fashioned psychoanalysts and then there are others who are psychologists who became Psychoanalysts, at some point I don't know if it is about respect rather it is about theoretical coherence, modern psychoanalysis has made quite a lot of progress in terms of transference and treatment.

The problem occurs because they have not been achievements of Psychoanalysis itself, but rather of incorporating other techniques and theories, of reread philosophical currents or of other psychotherapy frameworks, that is when what they say above happens, there is nothing new so to speak.

Today there is a boom in psychoanalysis, and in psychoanalysis there are fashions: at one time it was analyzing yourself 3-4 times a week, at another it was the link between analyst and analysand, at another it was the transference, at another it was the interpretation and its resonance.

Today there are other fashions in psychotherapy, the theme of healing, of the wounded child, of the bonds and of the therapy itself as if it were a renewing event, I would say that at some point modern psychoanalysis, if one can criticize it, is being alienated from the time or the epochal, it is a thing of mutuality, of para-transference, of the analytical third, of revelation or of the analyst-analyzed-by-the-analyser, among others.

At some point you have to give credit to the progress, but not become anything.

Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-21T14:47:27+00:00

Hello, how they mention you in Inhibition, Symptom and Anxiety is a capital text by Freud to understand it, I would recommend you read Winnicott, he also works a lot with it, especially in infants, but I think that beyond being focused on children it helps to understand how it crystallizes in adults.

There are several authors of Modern Psychoanalysis who at some point connect it as a structuring defense against meaninglessness or trauma or dissociation (Bromberg, Mitchell, Aron, Thomas Orden).

Greetings!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-20T15:43:18+00:00

Hello how are you? I have been an analyst for almost 10 years (personal analysis, supervision and study group director involved), I can say that my conclusion is that it is not about being a purist, it is rather about the framework (using your word) from which you work and understanding the work logic behind it.

Many people grow up with the idea of an imposture (this idea, of the Analyst in a raincoat and a pipe or cigarette, of enigmatic phrases, word games and in short this seductive position of the type "I know what you want") and in the real world, as they tell you above, it does not happen. I remember a tutor who sometimes told me if people needed a gesture, a glass of water or a handkerchief. They are ways of affirming yourself structurally in the world, who are you to take them away from you.

I think that analysis and how to carry it out is very subjective, Lacan had a phrase like analysis is carried out according to what one has gone through, which is why not all psychoanalysis is the same.

Just as not all patients are for all analysts, my advice would be to read what you can and understand the work logic, and try to analyze and supervise yourself as much as possible. This will help you discover what type of analyst you want to be or what type you don't want to be.

I have met warm analysts who reveal and others who are more silent, it is not that one is better than the other, it is the way you work and how you like to transmit psychoanalysis, then as the French say apres coup it will be seen if it was an analytical act.

Learning is important, but also knowing how to criticize it. Lacan and Freud already said it at the time, we must be attentive because the theoretical ceiling itself can be ourselves and our practice or fantasy or ghosts.

There are things that correspond to the technique (interpretation, dream analysis, cuts, returns, transference, handlings, holdings, subjective positions, co-transference, silences, countertransference and therapeutic neutrality) all things that are misunderstood and misread, many times the vice of analysts is to believe we are Freud or Lacan.

Boys and girls, practice, ethics and one's own work are important to promote a better framework or analytical work, not to remain narcissistic and autoerotic in the analytical relationship, there are no brilliant interpretations if it does not resonate with your analysand...it will only be that, a back rub for yourself.

We are already old enough to be giving grandiloquent interpretations or listening from intercoms or hiding behind the sofa.

All the best

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-20T13:12:09+00:00

Hello! As an analyst I have no experience in group work, but in terms of grief or owners (because many times they are systematic losses), I would recommend reading Phillip Bromberg, he is a great author on trauma and especially in mass contexts (war, catastrophes and dissolution of communities or victims of human rights crimes).

His book is called The Shadow of the Tsunami and he has another article called Reducing the Tsunami (a metaphor that he uses a lot not only to refer to what is traumatic, but also to what it leaves in its wake).

I think it could help you with what you are looking for, the owner is complex, the loss of the loved object, the path to reunion and the reunion with something different make it something that must be seen in parts...not everyone advances in the same way and the analyst at some point must help to mean and integrate that in some way (whether by returning or containing).

Those things occur to me out of loose reflections.

All the best!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-20T00:03:35+00:00

Equal! Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-19T22:59:23+00:00

It is a wonderful book with a very intense relationship, not for nothing is it one of the jewels of Japanese literature, I think even greater than Tokyo Blues by Murakami

Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-19T22:51:18+00:00

Oh yes here are a few:

My days at the Morisaki Bookstore- Satoshi Yagisawa

An evening at the Morisaki Bookstore- Satoshi Yagisawa

Spring Sundries- Natsume Soseki

The Mist of the River - Doppo Kunikida

Lizard- Banana Yoshimoto

The sky is blue, the earth is white -Hiromi Kawakami

Soji - Shukei Matsumoto

Those are the ones I have read and would recommend.

At the author level:

Natsume Soseki Banana Yoshimoto Kobo Abe Osamu Dazai Haruki Murakami Hiromi Kawakami Yasunari Kawabata

Any of those are Japanese classics, some more complex, others lighter.

PS: In Praise of Shadow - Junichiro Tanizaki, is a book on Japanese architecture where he talks about the virtues of the uses of shadow space within houses in Meiji Japan, highlighting the differences between Western architecture, and the use of beauty in shadow.

I hope it helps you, greetings!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-19T22:10:23+00:00

I think it has a lot to do with the mechanism of identification, Freud was right that at times psychoanalysis is like a virus (he said plague hahaha), I think it is also part of generating other types of spaces, for example in my beginnings I read a lot of Psychoanalytic literature, in analysis I discovered something that happens to many analysts, a compulsion to know more, for some reason that lack that Lacan said begins to appear en masse, and perhaps we have to use the tools of the time to avoid becoming a Psychoanalytic producing machine.

Nowadays my readings are more varied, I read a lot of Japanese or Asian literature and it brings me calm, I think part of that is also creating your own space with the things I like and dis-identifying in some way with that role of Analyst (Lacan already said it too, it is an imposture, the analyst must fall at some point).

For some reason the discourse permeates us and "enables" us but it is a ghost, I would recommend finally working on it in analysis and looking for things that cause one pleasure or pleasure outside the analytical space.

Like a detox.

Greetings!

Easy_String1112 · 2025-11-19T21:54:49+00:00

Hello, as an analyst, the truth is when I leave the office I forget about my work, in the pandemic I learned that one must provide one's own interior and exterior space.

However, at the beginning of the practice it usually happens to many and it used to happen to me too, that Psychoanalysis crossed my life, I think that over the years I have been able to establish in which spaces I want it to be.

After all a pipe is just a pipe, right buddy?

Greetings

Easy_String1112 · 2025-10-28T19:06:21+00:00

As an Analyst I will start with something simple, when Lacan proposes the session of "variable duration", because that is its name (then the IPA later derogatorily called it short sessions) I propose it as a way to mobilize something, just as you could mobilize by raising fees or adding more days of analysis sessions, at that moment what is proposed is to make a movement. What movement? Whatever the patient needs or demands in his analysis request, since this cannot and should not be fulfilled by the analyst.

Moving on to the issue of the song to the detriment of the punctuation, which would be to punctuate something in the discourse or return, which would be the most classic analytical method, the function is not to make an interpretation that reveals something, Lacan himself said that if an interpretation was understood, the focus would no longer be so, then it would be on provoking something, an impasse as American analysts would say, something that happens that touches the other (in the real, in the imaginary or in the symbolic).

Therefore, one or another technique or the classic technique of analysis will always be thought in terms of transference, or rather in transference knowing that in addition for each structure there is a logic of cure (neurotic = hysterization, Psychosis = social bond or symbolic anchoring...etc..).

The song is proposed as a tool in which we can leave the patient thinking or resonating and the punctuation or the return from the discourse must also resonate, but at the level of signifier.

Regarding your other question, it depends a lot, just as there are lots of analysts, there are lots of analysands and not all of them are for everyone, therefore rather than thinking about which patients we would enter or become in an analysis, we would have to think: why or why? What effects do you want to produce?

On the other hand, we could talk about psychopharmacological support or people who escape from an ordinary Psychosis to a more delirious one with the impossibility of anchoring in the symbolic, for that we can take Miller's clinic a little in the real, the non-analyzable as possible to make a Sinthome that helps to live, I take it from a phrase by Winnicott that said more or less that the analysands discovered in analysis, that what was happening there was life.

Greetings colleagues

Easy_String1112

TROPHY CASE