Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate <tate at netwood.net> To: Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org> Rehello Jacques, Because of the mail problem, I am sending my response to you so you can forward it to them. Hello all, There are three different levels to respond to the question of what is involved in using the title 'psychoanalyst' in the US, specifically in California. 1 - The title of psychoanalyst is only part of stature law in NY (and may be Mass, I am not sure of this though). What is part of statute law in California is the use of the title psychologist. I would invite you to compare the wording of NY for psychoanalyst with that of CA (? 2903) to recognize the difference. 2 ? However, if you use psychoanalysis to treat people and provide a service, i.e., as psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis, then you fall under the statute law for psychologists and are liable for sanctions. If you do not, but still use the title psychoanalyst, you do not fall under the interpretation of (? 2903). 3? Lastly, beyond the law of any state, however, the real problem, at least for many analysands in the US, is how not to confuse practicing analysis with doing psychotherapeutic analysis. Every US analyst I have met to date does not practice psychoanalysis, in the sense of Lacan, but only psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis. Not only do they not practice psychoanalysis, they do not even understand what the difference is to begin so, by default, usually fall under the label of psychologists improvising a kind of psychoanalytic therapy. As you can tell, for me and others, what is primary is (3), if this is not resolved, then the problems of (1) and (2) remain moot. To clarify what is at stake, it really takes more than some email exchanges. Best regards, Scully Robert
On Sep 29, 2025, at 2:22?AM, Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org> wrote:
Actually your mail has been sent, we have the problem that so far mailman does not send a copy to the sender!! I have to solve this, but it you look in the archives you'll see your mail went through: https://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/2025-September/date.html
But can you some day take the time to answer to Kristopher and John
Talk soon
Jacques
On 9/29/25 9:07 AM, Tate wrote:
Here is the address I sent the mail to: the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org <mailto:the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org>
I pushed reply to a previous email, and the above was the address that it sent it to. I then received the reply: ] ===== Your message entitled
ANALYSIS IN THE US
was successfully received by the The-lacanalyst mailing list. ====
But in fact, it looks like it is sending my original email only back to me, to my oriiginal address and leaving everyone else out:
In any case, let me know,
SR
On Sep 28, 2025, at 11:31?PM, Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org> wrote:
I don't understand. Are you making sure you send the mail to topologos at lutecium.org? If so please send me a copy of the refused message. Anyway this is weird and not standard.
I forward your mail to the group
Jacques
On 9/29/25 12:44 AM, Tate wrote:
Hello Jacques,
I have pushed reply now twice to the emails from the Lutecium list in my INBOX, and they do not seem to be getting through.
Instead, it seems they are coming back to my address and CCing me also. Do I need to push something besides reply?
In any case, here are my previous two messages:
Let me know,
Scully-Robert
"Hello all,
Well, I sent out a previous email and it seems it did not go through ot went to the wrong mailbox. Let me know if this goes through. I will copy-paste what I had already sent:
<< Bonjour Jacques and others,
In this initial probe, I am sending out a brief post just to check whether the email invitation works.
It was a pleasure to meet again in Paris for the homage to Jean-Michel.
The question of what is required to work under the title of psychoanalyst should be gone through carefully, not mistaking, for example, policy with statutory law, or psychoanalysis with psychoanalytic therapy.
This much said, I am not so sure email is the right forum.
Let me know if this goes through, how, and when you would care to address this.
Truly,
Scully-Robert Groome>>
Dear Scully Robert, D'accord, merci. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 3:00?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Grep Robert's answer
Jacques
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate <tate at netwood.net> To: Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org>
Rehello Jacques,
Because of the mail problem, I am sending my response to you so you can forward it to them. Hello all,
There are three different levels to respond to the question of what is involved in using the title 'psychoanalyst' in the US, specifically in California.
1 - The title of psychoanalyst is only part of stature law in NY (and may be Mass, I am not sure of this though). What is part of statute law in California is the use of the title psychologist. I would invite you to compare the wording of NY for psychoanalyst with that of CA (? 2903) to recognize the difference.
2 ? However, if you use psychoanalysis to treat people and provide a service, i.e., as psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis, then you fall under the statute law for psychologists and are liable for sanctions. If you do not, but still use the title psychoanalyst, you do not fall under the interpretation of (? 2903).
3? Lastly, beyond the law of any state, however, the real problem, at least for many analysands in the US, is how not to confuse practicing analysis with doing psychotherapeutic analysis. Every US analyst I have met to date does not practice psychoanalysis, in the sense of Lacan, but only psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis. Not only do they not practice psychoanalysis, they do not even understand what the difference is to begin so, by default, usually fall under the label of psychologists improvising a kind of psychoanalytic therapy. As you can tell, for me and others, what is primary is (3), if this is not resolved, then the problems of (1) and (2) remain moot. To clarify what is at stake, it really takes more than some email exchanges. Best regards,
Scully Robert
On Sep 29, 2025, at 2:22?AM, Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org> wrote:
Actually your mail has been sent, we have the problem that so far mailman does not send a copy to the sender!! I have to solve this, but it you look in the archives you'll see your mail went through: https://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/2025-September/date.html
But can you some day take the time to answer to Kristopher and John
Talk soon
Jacques
Here is the address I sent the mail to: the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org <mailto:the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org>
I pushed reply to a previous email, and the above was the address that it sent it to. I then received the reply: ] ===== Your message entitled
ANALYSIS IN THE US
was successfully received by the The-lacanalyst mailing list. ====
But in fact, it looks like it is sending my original email only back to me, to my oriiginal address and leaving everyone else out:
In any case, let me know,
SR
On Sep 28, 2025, at 11:31?PM, Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org> wrote:
I don't understand. Are you making sure you send the mail to topologos at lutecium.org? If so please send me a copy of the refused message. Anyway this is weird and not standard.
I forward your mail to the group
Jacques
On 9/29/25 12:44 AM, Tate wrote:
Hello Jacques,
I have pushed reply now twice to the emails from the Lutecium list in my INBOX, and they do not seem to be getting through.
Instead, it seems they are coming back to my address and CCing me also. Do I need to push something besides reply?
In any case, here are my previous two messages:
Let me know,
Scully-Robert
"Hello all,
Well, I sent out a previous email and it seems it did not go through ot went to the wrong mailbox. Let me know if this goes
On 9/29/25 9:07 AM, Tate wrote: through.
I will copy-paste what I had already sent:
<< Bonjour Jacques and others,
In this initial probe, I am sending out a brief post just to check whether the email invitation works.
It was a pleasure to meet again in Paris for the homage to Jean-Michel.
The question of what is required to work under the title of psychoanalyst should be gone through carefully, not mistaking, for example, policy with statutory law, or psychoanalysis with psychoanalytic therapy.
This much said, I am not so sure email is the right forum.
Let me know if this goes through, how, and when you would care to address this.
Truly,
Scully-Robert Groome>>
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
participants (2)
-
euripides.aviva＠gmail.com -
jacsib＠lutecium.org