When I began my studies in psychoanalysis in the year 1969, I myself was very confused, which immediately led me to recognize the confusion in my teachers and colleagues - their confusion was only a different type. At that time, it seemed to be impossible for me to cope at the Akademie für Psychoanalyse in Munich. It cost me a great deal of effort to follow through with my studies. So when I first became acquainted with Kirpal Singh in 1971 (and met him in person in 1972),
I caught scent of a supportive way out. My whole life I had not only been searching for a technically competent person, but also someone humane and 'integer vitae scelerisque purus'.
But usually, from school to university, through clinic years as a general practitioner up to the Akademie für Psychoanalyse, I only found people with good qualifications. Never did I come across a person humane or even across a person who was both at the same time. My inclination then was increasingly found on human integrity. With Kirpal Singh I found the most honest person I have ever met, his qualification as a theologian were impeccable, even if he wasn't considered as being scientifically brilliant in Western terms. I was only able to alleviate that deficit after studying Lacan's seminars.
And, this is the reason I wrote this book. Because, being a person of integrity, technically speaking, also means: fully analyzed. No psychoanalyst, quoting Safouan, has ever concluded his analysis,1 so we are bearing a failing heritage ever since Freud. In a certain way, this failing heritage may be understood as the phenomenon of counter-transference, meaning that the analyst himself reacts to the patient's transference with a corresponding reaction. This need not always be disruptive, though I would regard it as bearing little sense for the analyst, as some said, to analytically work with that (also see H. Prader's example mentioned above).
However, one could continue to demand of each analyst to completely re-interpret Freud's work anew, namely based upon his own experiences in analysis and with other analyzed patients as well as with theoretical elaboration of psychoanalysis in word of mouth and in literature. Anyone who is but slightly knowledgeable of today's situation of psychoanalysis also knows that we are far from it. J. Lacan is probably one of the few, or quite the only one, to whom you would attribute this as a successor of Freud.
1 As quoted several times above, the conclusion of an analysis consist of that remnant of the other, who is yet a structure (SPEAKS), and knowledge, instances of revelation (SHINES). Lacan, J., Séminaire Nr. IXX, 16th Nov. '76
Anmerkung der Redaktion: Dieser Artikel stammt aus einer Beitragsreihe zum Thema: Analytische Psychocatharsis.