I am postulating an irreconcilable discrepancy between psychoanalytic metapsychology and praxis. Metapsychology reaches for the abstract, for the general class of which the patient is an ostensible member—said class, somewhat tautologically, demonstrating the validity of the professed meta-psychology. Yet, from the Interpersonal view, therapy depends on grasping the highly idiosyncratic way the patient plays out his or her life both in and out of the therapy room. Abstracting the patient concretizes the process and reduces information. As a consequence, the clinical material falls short of utilizing the rich, recursive patterning of the therapist's exchanges with the patient, failing to fully realize the uncanny enmeshment of unconscious gears that so defines the psychoanalytic mystique.