Final Comments on the Case of Petros

First of all, I would like to thank Nancy Taloumi who ‘crafted’ constructions through her comments from listening to and observing with respect the clinical material from the psychotherapy with the young boy struggling to grow up and transition into the symbolic order of things. Adopting the perspective of Nicoli (2016), that young adolescents, through their identification with a passionate, curious analyst, can discover within themselves the pleasure of exploring the world, I would say that it is a blessing to encounter a conversational partner with a keen interest in the search for meaning. As I begin to record my thoughts, a cheerful image of Petros comes to mind—about two years after the start of therapy—when I open the door, and he asks, “Can I come in?” What follows are phallic attacks, with markers being thrown at the window of the dollhouse; a game mediated by glances, thoughts, and words. Upon hearing his question, I wonder whether he is asking me to create a ‘terzet’— that is, to represent the primal scene as a kind of musical composition written for three instruments or three voices, as Niedecken describes it (2016).

However, a lot has happened leading up to that point. It is noteworthy that the pediatric examination unsettles Petros as he comes to terms with having a penis which means that there are gender and generational differences. Oedipal issues arise.

Taloumi emphasises the child's difficulty in processing these issues. As he confronts them, he regresses, following a pre-Oedipal trajectory. Within this phase, Petros struggles to determine space and time. Differentiation issues

appear to arise from the very beginning of the therapy, as noted by Taloumi, who highlights issues of identification, documenting the journey a child must undergo in order to enter the Oedipal constellation, where secondar