Adam Phillips and I met in London in October 2003, at my request. We talked about many things, one of which was how difficult it sometimes is knowing who to recommend when we are asked for the name of an analyst. How do we choose those to whom we refer people? What are the criteria? Competence (but how exactly do we know?)? Scholarship? Experience? Hearsay? Reputation? Notoriety? Publications? All of these things, surely, play a role – but only to a very limited extent. As for the analyst’s affiliation to this or that group or institution, it plays no part at all (except, perhaps, in a negative way). So, how do we choose? I told him that the deciding factor for me was a capacity to care – which I rarely found amongst Lacanians. Masud Khan (who was Phillips’ analyst) talked about taking people into “therapeutic care.” “Yes,” said Phillips, “it’s a question of kindness.” Now, kindness is not an analytical concept, it is not taught in analytical institutes, it can’t be learned – any more than integrity, sensitivity, rigor, or honesty for example.

From Lacan to Ferenczi

Michael Larivière

The Budapest School of Psychoanalysis:
The Origin of a Two-Person Psychology and Emphatic Perspective


“…In “Thoughts” (1986) Khan tells us about himself as “an aristocrat”; the word dictator would seem to me equally appropriate….”

Paul Roazen



psikoserum tarafından yayımlandı

Kocaeli Üniversitesi Psikolojik Danışmanlık ve Rehberlik

Bir Cevap Yazın

Aşağıya bilgilerinizi girin veya oturum açmak için bir simgeye tıklayın: Logosu hesabınızı kullanarak yorum yapıyorsunuz. Çıkış  Yap /  Değiştir )

Twitter resmi

Twitter hesabınızı kullanarak yorum yapıyorsunuz. Çıkış  Yap /  Değiştir )

Facebook fotoğrafı

Facebook hesabınızı kullanarak yorum yapıyorsunuz. Çıkış  Yap /  Değiştir )

Connecting to %s

%d blogcu bunu beğendi: