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.
Starting from some memories of an analysis, the author thinks about the analyst's “acting” and the possible derivative effects. He considers Freud's theorizing about this and its ambiguities, which led to several future enrichments and developments. Following the event of remembrance in psychoanalysis, until its disappearance in Kleinian and post-Kleinian psychoanalysis, the author reaches the present reflection. His outline concentrates on the transferal hic et nunce, with particular reference to the relational and “interactionist” positions.
The author sees in the Freudian ambiguities an intrinsic characteristic of psychoanalysis; if we abandon it we would risk oversimplifying and flattening both theoretically and clinically. He suggests a functional, dialectic link between acting and remembering, through which there is a reopening of temporality in the present a dual construction, resulting from the patientanalyst relationship. He ends his essay with a new case, showing the transformative ability analysis has on memories, analysis which weaves new memories and more livable stories. This is what the author tries to do in the special meeting with the patient.