Part two:

Psychoanalysis will no longer be learned in ‘institutes’ of psychoanalysis. It will be part of the world of knowledge in academia not confined to the world of apprenticeship in the institutes. In light of the anticipated radical changes in its learning and training analysts should not feel sorry for what they know and have to discard. They better begin working on an advanced theory and practice of psychoanalysis.  One of the primary issues we have to deal with is the development of a language that could be understood and spoken by other academicians. We also have to work on the subject-matter of a theory so that we could exchange knowledge with other professional about what is overlapping between their theories m and ours.    

 The problem with psychoanalysis since its birth is ignoring that there is a difference between the subject- matter of “psychoanalysis” and the practicing of psychotherapy. If psychoanalysis is only psychotherapy, why then do have so much vocabulary about unrelated issues of psychotherapy! The lack of distinction between those two issues was caused by Freud discovering psychoanalysis while doing psychotherapy. A blind- almost infantile- identification with Freud as a therapist rebuffed some great thinkers from joining him and us after him. The theoretical base of psychotherapy itself could have and still can benefitted from inputs of that nature.

Psychoanalysis: Theory and Practice.

If psychoanalysis is more than just psychotherapy (which it is) what could it about. The main point in answering this question is knowing what we analysts do when we practice the psychotherapy of psychoanalysis. Do we analyze the patient, his speech, or a psychoneurotic structure? I hope that it is noticeable that whatever the answer of any of those questions might be the analyst has to have a theory, in which those issues are of some sort of theoretical entity and could be subject matter of that act of therapy. If that is achieved psychoanalysis would be more than just some vocabulary that is not even constituting a language.

There is a fundamental preface to this notion. The last six centuries were the age of philosophy. Philosophers’ work during that period was understanding the nature of the human subject (the subject matter of philosophy). They reached the point where a contradiction in his nature needed to be dealt with. Freud was the one ‘destiny or time has assigned to reveal the duality of the human subject, and it became the subject-matter of the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis. I will explain this point without preliminary discussion relying on the contributions and  discussions of other colleagues’ and some material I published lately.

Acknowledging a distinction between the intrapsychical (the subjective psychical aspect of the person) and the interpersonal (the psychological aspect of relating to others) depicts two human conditions: a subjective sense of being, or the I am, and an objective sense being an  he or the object me. The formation of the very personal intrapsychical structure is made possible because the human faculty of language which allows distinctions of that kind. Language as a mental capacity creates a gap between the subject as I and an object Me. Our psychological life is there in that gap. The subject-matter of psychoanalysis, or what analysis is analysis of- is the linguistic bridging between the subject I and his objective me (a counterpart or the I). Without this particular subject- matter our vocabulary will have no psychoanalytical content. Cicero as I sublimated his urges of superiority as a me, benefitting from his verbal endowment to fulfill his narcissistic inclinations. If we did not have in mind the that Cicero transformed his intrapsychic urges into fulfilling behavior our usage of word sublimation would be misinterpreted.  Vocabulary is meaningless until it sets up the context in which it will attain its meaning. What we have till now-in psychoanalysis- is mostly vocabulary that has confusing meanings and creating different psychoanalytic languages.  Psychoanalysis does not have a theory yet, but has some vocabularies, and a shadow of a subject matter.

Temporarily, I would say that the human subject presents us with a phenomenon that is very difficult to fathom: his duality. It is a duality that is inherent I would even say that the subject-matter of psychoanalysis is that duality of the human subject’s existence. I do not mean by that the dualities of conscious and unconscious, manifest and latent, past and present, primary and secondary, metonymy and metaphor; I mean the duality of identity: I and me. The other dualities, which we are more familiar with are onlypossibel to exist because of the nature of the person is inherently dualistic. 

I think that language, which is a human characteristic that does not exist in any other life entity facilitated and allowed a dichotomy within the human mind to take 'hiself' as an object.