You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
[…] a touch of creativity is no bad thing in our work; we may even say that it is indispensable to compensate for the difficulty in thinking and imagining which is a feature of psychotic patients; and it is just as indispensable for us to enable us to appreciate our work. I would add that a touch of humour is also essential.
I should say at the outset that I have chosen a slant, certain arguments and a manner of presenting them that are part and parcel of my way of being a psychoanalyst and a person: I hope they will be understood as the result of the passion with which I work in this profession.
Let me also add that, both in the Congress, and in the Rivista di Psicoanalisi, my paper comes after that of Maria Ponsi, to whom I refer frequently in relation to definitions and approach to the topic. In addition, having the paper published with Sandra Filippini in Rivista di Psicoanalisi in 1993 in mind and being well aware of how competent she is, it seemed necessary to me to seek other lines of interpretation. I recalled situations in which I was the protagonist and player in something which had to do with «doing». Therefore, continuing along these lines, I began to address mainly issues related to doing, seen from the analyst's point of view. Actually, this distinction represents a legacy of readings and understanding of the analytical relationship with which I am no longer comfortable. The time has definitely gone in which it was common to separate what belongs to the patient from what belongs to the analyst. It seems clear and now shareable that each aspect of the analytical relationship is bi-dimensional.