Psychoanalysis is likened to voodoo, and seen as deriving from dreaming. The fright of the reader of psychoanalytical texts. Also: Masud Khan and the why of art.
I am not a psychoanalyst, nor am I seeing one. But I read psychoanalytical texts, and must ask myself why.
I mean I try to read mostly narratives of the analytical encounter and the analyst’s subsequent attempt to extract or abstract a number of still theoretical formulations that could be useful to him, and then to others. But I prefer it if the texts have an emotional significance, meaning that they are, at the end, tragically useless beyond what they describe. Freud’s “Dora” is a great narrative but is contested because the patient, at the end, does not return. A writer of such texts is, I believe, later bound to put their name to an unhappy, uncertain ending – to a text written over by the absent patient. That adds, in a way, to the drama of the texts.
But it’s even more unclear to me what a reader of psychoanalytical texts does, or is.
In psychoanalysis, I am attracted to the notion of saying anything that comes to my mind insofar as I am unable to do so – as Freud says “we not only want to hear from him what he knows and is holding from others, but he shall also tell us, what he does