I would like to express my gratitude to Arthur Leonoff for his discussion of my paper. He is an analyst of great capacity and experience and his paper has inspired me to make the following comments in reply.
It is true, I insist, that psychoanalysis is located more on the side of the social sciences. I say this because of the effects that the bond with the other has on the subject.
This is a dynamic phenomenon, not biological phenomena.
The formation of the psychic apparatus depends on the personal relationships within the family. These are dynamic relationships and will affect the other of the unconscious.
On the other hand, the biological sciences, in this aspect of mental functioning, are strongly influenced by neurosciences. It has a reasoning.
I consider brain functioning as corresponding to the neurosciences, and not (corresponding) with the functioning of the psyche.
In this sense, it is clear that the brain is not the psyche.
With regard to the analytical process, I fully agree with Arthur Leonoff when he says that the analyst's work occurs in a “field” where analyst and analysand interact subjectively.
What the analysand says is subjectively heard and assimilated by the analyst. The analyst listens with his subjectivity.
In turn, when the analyst speaks and interprets, it is heard by the analysand in an exclusive way, determined by the subjectivity of the analysand.
In the end, the analysand constructs his own interpretation. And it's okay that it is this way because it can't be in any other way.