Dear friend To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision. When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis. Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of preliminary sessions and not actual analysis. If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me. This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure. All the best my friend Jacques
I think I am approaching this in a different way and over the years I have I think realized the necessity for this. As an American practicing in America I do not think I can singlehandedly bring a French concept/praxis to America and I think we risk losing the whole thing if we try to do so. In my opinion it is too much to risk. After watching Jacques Siboni tirelessly bring the 4 analytic positions to the US and watching the audience's systematic rejection I became aware that it is not WHAT we present but the WAY we present it that might matters here due to a different sensibility around efficacy and value. I think we need to start with the topological proofs. Many Americans are well aware of the lack of efficacy of what they are sold in CBT, DBT, ERP, EBT. But it is counterintuitive for them to look outside this entire framework. They can and do, but I think of the preliminary sessions as working with this counterintutiveness in addition to the other parts of it. If you give some Americans this space they run with it. Most significantly, the position of the analyst is on an "edge" as Jacques Siboni notes. We are not always in it, it is for what we strive. As a licensed clinician in the US (with zero interest in Psychology) I can try to afford a home, food, life with my education, training and experience. Most of my patients I see via their insurance in agency settings. About 1/3 of my work has been private practice and there about 50 percent of patients still utilize insurance or health savings accounts (as defined by the IRS) to reimburse themselves. Without insurance I would have about 10 patients maximum and could not economically survive. Yet, because the clinical work to me IS the attempt to be in the position of the analyst, I would say I have about 15 patients at this time who are IN analysis as they have decided to talk about themselves as a subject, usually after years of preliminary sessions but certainly sooner in a few cases. Rebecca Bauknight was my first contact in Lacanian work. She noted that there is always a trace, that transmission occurs via adaptations, generations, specifications so that it extends forward and remains relevant, renewing itself. I so appreciate her, John Gasperoni, Kristopher Litchanski and the Lutecium SF group she brought in headed by Jacques Siboni, who taught many of us most of what we know of Lacan. Jacques has the courage and determination to bring Lacanalysis to the US and he succeeded in my opinion. Rebecca was able to bring together artists, psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, thinkers. She had her own challenges but her ability to bring such a diverse, reflective group was uncanny and also successful overall. Lacanalysis is already here in the states. It is molded in the transmission here and I do not see the issue with that as it is the only way we can attempt to occupy the position of the analyst here at all, which is my goal. I study with Jacques Siboni who basically has singlehandedly taught me everything I know. I have patients on a waiting list wanting to do the kind of work I attempt to do. I speak about Lacan, use Lacanian terms and hold myself out as both a licensed clinician and a Lacanlayst. I work within the guidelines of my country and my state license but I do not think that what I do is that far off from Lacanian work. I am currently talking to my private practice patients about the cut and plan on using it in these sessions. I could not earn a living with the insurance sessions if I cut because the billing codes are based on minutes. I highlight the aspects of the cut under these circumstances with patients and they understand the premise. I am working with the brilliance of Quinn Foerch, another American, to work as a Lacanalyst in America. I think it is preferable to ground in the rigor of the classical work but to have some space to breathe so that there can be the transmission that is possible. I will continue to occupy the position of the analyst with my own circumstances as best I can and my patients, most of whom I have been working with for years, seem to appreciate this and move with it, flaws, imperfections and all. Aviva On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 3:32?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear friend
To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision. When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis.
Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
All the best my friend
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
Dearest Jacques and Folks, In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will respond to your question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a question of my own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you will respond to. But first, in response to the following:
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.), there is no law restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license to practice. The proof of the pudding is you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma, no license, and not sued (if that is your worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even present at the time before last meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing laws in CA was resolved a long time ago, at least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today. I am not saying some people will not have problems actually establishing an analytic practice ? this impossibility is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US ? in fact, some people have so many problems that all that they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree, then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this professional basis is used as the standard for an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and it is no surprise that people would be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I think the problem is much worse: they should be scared of the s?autotorize which I described in my last missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to enter into a psychoanalytic discourse: no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties, but was there any analysis? In the end, there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and the rest, but it just takes a little more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and fears. In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since the questions that are being asked about the Laws in the US have been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how to establish fundamentally that one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is only the s?autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing full well that analysis is part of its own clinic). So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan started a ?Section Clinique? in France whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never left (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic). Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of practicing Lacanian analysis in France is that the two Apostles, Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a Lacanian Ghetto, with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why Vappereau also left. So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization of Lacanian analysis in France has made it impossible to work at analysis in France? I would be relieved if you could answer this question. Best to you and friends, ScullyRobert
On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32?AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear friend
To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision. When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis.
Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
All the best my friend
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
Hi everyone, I'm back from travels, but still dealing with Centurylink internet/broadband issues. Hm... I disagree, Scully. It will take one anonymous phone call to the Board of Psychology in California stating that psychoanalysis is being offered to the public by non-licensed people at PLACE and you will be investigated by the state and potentially sued for providing mental health services (psychoanalysis - which is how it is defined in California statutes) without being licensed to do so in CA State. I am not predicting the outcome... Perhaps even nothing comes of it... but trust me... chances are you will not enjoy yourself for some months... and you will dish out on a lawyer... (I do notrecommend defending yourself... US judges hate that and they have a lot of power regarding their decisions.... they have a completely free range to decide the outcome). As I have stated before, I don't care what risks people take to do whatever they want in life, but I completely disagree with the statement that absence of a license requirement means a legal permission to practice. I also don't see much point arguing about it. I do have a license, so this particular item is not relevant to me at all and I don't need anybody to convince me about it at all. Please do with yourselves as you wish. Note for Jacques: There is no national level licensing for anything here. Each state regulates and licenses their own professionals, so whenever you compare France to the US, be aware that you are speaking about 50 different sets of statues, laws, and regulations (not just one). Please also clearly differentiate between criminal law and lawsuits and civil lawsuits (which can be filed by anybody for any reason, and you can't just ignore it...) in the US. I can hold you in court proceedings for years... years... if I have a good reason to be pissed at you and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to keep pushing you to the brink of financial ruin (so you agree to what I and my lawyer wants). We (US) are a case-based law, once a case is decided in court, it is from that point on considered a law... so once CA State said (in a case as adjudicated by a CA judge) that practicing psychoanalysis means practicing mental health for which a state license is required, it will be considered when someone takes you to court for practicing psychoanalysis without a license to do so. One thing for sure: someone has to be a complainant. So - if you know what you are doing and why, and with whom... nobody complains, nobody gets sued... but it takes one anonymous phone call to send CA State your way for some truly unexpected fun... and the argument put forth here so far would - most likely - not fly, but... I am not a lawyer, so please... talk to lawyers about it, not psychoanalysts. Otherwise - indeed - psychoanalysis is impossible anywhere, so what are we actually getting together to talk about... how impossible it is to do what we are not doing? Sounds like a good topic to me. The impossibility of nothing(ness). Happy (US) Thanksgiving! Gotta go hunt for a wild turkey... On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 9:53?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dearest Jacques and Folks,
In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will respond to your question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a question of my own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you will respond to.
But first, in response to the following:
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.), there is no law restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license to practice. The proof of the pudding is you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma, no license, and not sued (if that is your worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even present at the time before last meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing laws in CA was resolved a long time ago, at least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today.
I am not saying some people will not have problems actually establishing an analytic practice ? this impossibility is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US ? in fact, some people have so many problems that all that they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree, then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this professional basis is used as the standard for an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and it is no surprise that people would be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I think the problem is much worse: they should be scared of the* s?autotorize *which I described in my last missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to enter into a psychoanalytic discourse: no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties, but was there any analysis? In the end, there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and the rest, but it just takes a little more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and fears.
In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since the questions that are being asked about the Laws in the US have been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how to establish fundamentally that one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is only the s?autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing full well that analysis is part of its own clinic).
So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan started a ?Section Clinique? in France whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never left (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic).
Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of practicing Lacanian analysis in France is that the two Apostles, Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a Lacanian Ghetto, with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why Vappereau also left.
So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization of Lacanian analysis in France has made it impossible to work at analysis in France?
I would be relieved if you could answer this question.
Best to you and friends,
ScullyRobert
On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32?AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear friend
To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision. When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis.
Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
All the best my friend
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC <https://www.serendipityhealingarts.com> 1.206.451.7020
BTW: The latest hearing / lawsuit attempt to overturn CA State in regulating psychoanalysis from 2000 was dismissed by the District court (which means that this issue is unlikely to be taken up again in court and it would be again relegated to legislative branch of the government... return this decision to the people... and someone needs to sponsor a bill in CA legislative branch... and good luck with that...). I am not aware of any new developments in this area since then. Here is the actual legal version of the situation; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ In this write up, note specifically that these people had proper and legal credentials to practice elsewhere in the US, but not in CA. Enjoy the reading... and the frustration with the US law and judicial processes... which reminds me more of the Eastern Bloc "law" in the 1980s more than the "democracy" Americans claim they have here, but... I'm not from around here... so... don't trust anything I say... LOL... I once again suggest, if this is an item to resolve or yourself) that you dish out the $450 - $700 for a consultation with an attorney to further discuss this in your locality as each state and their licensing departments (which may be with health department, or consumer affair department, or god-knows-where-else department) and to understand how to best protect yourself from any potential accusations of an illegal mental health practice (should THAT ever occur). On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 10:27?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm back from travels, but still dealing with Centurylink internet/broadband issues. Hm...
I disagree, Scully. It will take one anonymous phone call to the Board of Psychology in California stating that psychoanalysis is being offered to the public by non-licensed people at PLACE and you will be investigated by the state and potentially sued for providing mental health services (psychoanalysis - which is how it is defined in California statutes) without being licensed to do so in CA State. I am not predicting the outcome... Perhaps even nothing comes of it... but trust me... chances are you will not enjoy yourself for some months... and you will dish out on a lawyer... (I do notrecommend defending yourself... US judges hate that and they have a lot of power regarding their decisions.... they have a completely free range to decide the outcome).
As I have stated before, I don't care what risks people take to do whatever they want in life, but I completely disagree with the statement that absence of a license requirement means a legal permission to practice. I also don't see much point arguing about it. I do have a license, so this particular item is not relevant to me at all and I don't need anybody to convince me about it at all. Please do with yourselves as you wish.
Note for Jacques: There is no national level licensing for anything here. Each state regulates and licenses their own professionals, so whenever you compare France to the US, be aware that you are speaking about 50 different sets of statues, laws, and regulations (not just one). Please also clearly differentiate between criminal law and lawsuits and civil lawsuits (which can be filed by anybody for any reason, and you can't just ignore it...) in the US. I can hold you in court proceedings for years... years... if I have a good reason to be pissed at you and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to keep pushing you to the brink of financial ruin (so you agree to what I and my lawyer wants).
We (US) are a case-based law, once a case is decided in court, it is from that point on considered a law... so once CA State said (in a case as adjudicated by a CA judge) that practicing psychoanalysis means practicing mental health for which a state license is required, it will be considered when someone takes you to court for practicing psychoanalysis without a license to do so.
One thing for sure: someone has to be a complainant. So - if you know what you are doing and why, and with whom... nobody complains, nobody gets sued... but it takes one anonymous phone call to send CA State your way for some truly unexpected fun... and the argument put forth here so far would - most likely - not fly, but... I am not a lawyer, so please... talk to lawyers about it, not psychoanalysts.
Otherwise - indeed - psychoanalysis is impossible anywhere, so what are we actually getting together to talk about... how impossible it is to do what we are not doing? Sounds like a good topic to me. The impossibility of nothing(ness).
Happy (US) Thanksgiving! Gotta go hunt for a wild turkey...
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 9:53?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dearest Jacques and Folks,
In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will respond to your question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a question of my own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you will respond to.
But first, in response to the following:
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.), there is no law restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license to practice. The proof of the pudding is you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma, no license, and not sued (if that is your worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even present at the time before last meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing laws in CA was resolved a long time ago, at least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today.
I am not saying some people will not have problems actually establishing an analytic practice ? this impossibility is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US ? in fact, some people have so many problems that all that they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree, then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this professional basis is used as the standard for an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and it is no surprise that people would be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I think the problem is much worse: they should be scared of the* s?autotorize *which I described in my last missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to enter into a psychoanalytic discourse: no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties, but was there any analysis? In the end, there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and the rest, but it just takes a little more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and fears.
In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since the questions that are being asked about the Laws in the US have been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how to establish fundamentally that one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is only the s?autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing full well that analysis is part of its own clinic).
So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan started a ?Section Clinique? in France whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never left (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic).
Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of practicing Lacanian analysis in France is that the two Apostles, Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a Lacanian Ghetto, with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why Vappereau also left.
So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization of Lacanian analysis in France has made it impossible to work at analysis in France?
I would be relieved if you could answer this question.
Best to you and friends,
ScullyRobert
On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32?AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear friend
To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision. When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis.
Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
All the best my friend
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC <https://www.serendipityhealingarts.com> 1.206.451.7020
-- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC <https://www.serendipityhealingarts.com> 1.206.451.7020
Dear Christopher, It sounds like you are misoriented in what I stated in my last missive. Perhaps I was not clear. Let me rephrase things. There is nobody at PLACE who offers psychoanalysis to the public, licensed or non-licensed, in fact, people all across the U.S. use the title of psychoanalyst to practice psychoanalysis with others without any license or any offer or demand. For example, there are professors who teach analysis in US universities and hold reading groups, are they under the jurisdiction of the Behavioral Board of Psychology? I do not think so, but they call themselves psychoanalysts. A group of people who get together to practice analysis in an educational setting ? not therapeutic ? are they offering psychoanlaysis analysis to others? I do not think so, and this is what I hear as being your fundamental disorientation. Such people are practicing psychoanalysis, but the difference with what you are implying, forgive me if this is not so, is that such people are either practicing analysis on people or they are attempting to diagnose people or ?offer? services. Is that what you think a psychoanalyst does or who what defines their title? If so, I think this is a very limited notion of how to isolate the psychoanalytic act. In fact, everyone working in such a situation like PLACE or other associations, or a Lacanian reading group, or a university course, etc. is really working as an analysand. Sure there are a few professors who may want to be entitled psychoanalyst, but I think this is even too much. It is much more important, if one is trying to establish a position, to become an analysand, not an analyst! There is nobody at PLACE going around calling themself an analyst or trying to diagnose others or interpret their dreams. And for good reason, the analyst is only an effect, and not a professional status. I do agree, with you, however, if someone would pose themself as a psychoanalyst offering services to others, not only would they not be working through PLACE ? who only supports analysands ? but they would not be doing analysis. At least, in the manner of Lacan (the short session is precisely about this). In any case, I hope this short response will clarify things for you. To be clear: if someone were trying to offer psychoanalysis as a service that diagnoses and treats other people, then they would be liable by the jurisdiction in valor in the state of CA. But that is not the only modality or, as far many are concerned, the best way to bring psychoanalysis into the public. Best, Scully Robert
On Nov 26, 2025, at 10:27?AM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm back from travels, but still dealing with Centurylink internet/broadband issues. Hm...
I disagree, Scully. It will take one anonymous phone call to the Board of Psychology in California stating that psychoanalysis is being offered to the public by non-licensed people at PLACE and you will be investigated by the state and potentially sued for providing mental health services (psychoanalysis - which is how it is defined in California statutes) without being licensed to do so in CA State. I am not predicting the outcome... Perhaps even nothing comes of it... but trust me... chances are you will not enjoy yourself for some months... and you will dish out on a lawyer... (I do notrecommend defending yourself... US judges hate that and they have a lot of power regarding their decisions.... they have a completely free range to decide the outcome).
As I have stated before, I don't care what risks people take to do whatever they want in life, but I completely disagree with the statement that absence of a license requirement means a legal permission to practice. I also don't see much point arguing about it. I do have a license, so this particular item is not relevant to me at all and I don't need anybody to convince me about it at all. Please do with yourselves as you wish.
Note for Jacques: There is no national level licensing for anything here. Each state regulates and licenses their own professionals, so whenever you compare France to the US, be aware that you are speaking about 50 different sets of statues, laws, and regulations (not just one). Please also clearly differentiate between criminal law and lawsuits and civil lawsuits (which can be filed by anybody for any reason, and you can't just ignore it...) in the US. I can hold you in court proceedings for years... years... if I have a good reason to be pissed at you and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to keep pushing you to the brink of financial ruin (so you agree to what I and my lawyer wants).
We (US) are a case-based law, once a case is decided in court, it is from that point on considered a law... so once CA State said (in a case as adjudicated by a CA judge) that practicing psychoanalysis means practicing mental health for which a state license is required, it will be considered when someone takes you to court for practicing psychoanalysis without a license to do so.
One thing for sure: someone has to be a complainant. So - if you know what you are doing and why, and with whom... nobody complains, nobody gets sued... but it takes one anonymous phone call to send CA State your way for some truly unexpected fun... and the argument put forth here so far would - most likely - not fly, but... I am not a lawyer, so please... talk to lawyers about it, not psychoanalysts.
Otherwise - indeed - psychoanalysis is impossible anywhere, so what are we actually getting together to talk about... how impossible it is to do what we are not doing? Sounds like a good topic to me. The impossibility of nothing(ness).
Happy (US) Thanksgiving! Gotta go hunt for a wild turkey...
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 9:53?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: Dearest Jacques and Folks,
In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will respond to your question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a question of my own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you will respond to.
But first, in response to the following:
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.), there is no law restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license to practice. The proof of the pudding is you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma, no license, and not sued (if that is your worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even present at the time before last meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing laws in CA was resolved a long time ago, at least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today.
I am not saying some people will not have problems actually establishing an analytic practice ? this impossibility is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US ? in fact, some people have so many problems that all that they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree, then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this professional basis is used as the standard for an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and it is no surprise that people would be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I think the problem is much worse: they should be scared of the s?autotorize which I described in my last missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to enter into a psychoanalytic discourse: no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties, but was there any analysis? In the end, there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and the rest, but it just takes a little more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and fears.
In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since the questions that are being asked about the Laws in the US have been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how to establish fundamentally that one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is only the s?autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing full well that analysis is part of its own clinic).
So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan started a ?Section Clinique? in France whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never left (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic).
Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of practicing Lacanian analysis in France is that the two Apostles, Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a Lacanian Ghetto, with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why Vappereau also left.
So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization of Lacanian analysis in France has made it impossible to work at analysis in France?
I would be relieved if you could answer this question.
Best to you and friends,
ScullyRobert
On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32?AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear friend
To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision. When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis.
Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
All the best my friend
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation. Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
OK... Thank you for your clarification, Scully. I already have access to university psychoanalysts working with literary text and so, please remove me from these listserves. For someone who claims so much knowledge of how to practice psychoanalysis in the US without a license, Scully, I most certainly misunderstood your statements (especially about what is going on at PLACE). So - with this new clarification and to avoid further misunderstandings - I wish all of you farewell. There are a few lacanians in Vancouver, BC I like to keep talking with instead of returning to this nonsense of "plaques on doors..." I am no longer in San Francisco and it is no longer 2010 - which is when this topic has ended. I hope there is a viable seminar offered one day that I could join (I'll keep an eye on that)... until then... Best wishes, Kris On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:00?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear Christopher,
It sounds like you are misoriented in what I stated in my last missive. Perhaps I was not clear. Let me rephrase things.
There is nobody at PLACE who offers psychoanalysis to the public, licensed or non-licensed, in fact, people all across the U.S. use the title of psychoanalyst to practice psychoanalysis with others without any license or any offer or demand. For example, there are professors who teach analysis in US universities and hold reading groups, are they under the jurisdiction of the Behavioral Board of Psychology? I do not think so, but they call themselves psychoanalysts. A group of people who get together to practice analysis in an educational setting ? not therapeutic ? are they offering psychoanlaysis analysis to others? I do not think so, and this is what I hear as being your fundamental disorientation. Such people are practicing psychoanalysis, but the difference with what you are implying, forgive me if this is not so, is that such people are either practicing analysis on people or they are attempting to diagnose people or ?offer? services. Is that what you think a psychoanalyst does or who what defines their title? If so, I think this is a very limited notion of how to isolate the psychoanalytic act.
In fact, everyone working in such a situation like PLACE or other associations, or a Lacanian reading group, or a university course, etc. is really working as an analysand. Sure there are a few professors who may want to be entitled psychoanalyst, but I think this is even too much. It is much more important, if one is trying to establish a position, to become an analysand, not an analyst! There is nobody at PLACE going around calling themself an analyst or trying to diagnose others or interpret their dreams. And for good reason, the analyst is only an effect, and not a professional status. I do agree, with you, however, if someone would pose themself as a psychoanalyst offering services to others, not only would they not be working through PLACE ? who only supports analysands ? but they would not be doing analysis. At least, in the manner of Lacan (the short session is precisely about this).
In any case, I hope this short response will clarify things for you. To be clear: if someone were trying to offer psychoanalysis as a service that diagnoses and treats other people, then they would be liable by the jurisdiction in valor in the state of CA. But that is not the only modality or, as far many are concerned, the best way to bring psychoanalysis into the public.
Best,
Scully Robert
On Nov 26, 2025, at 10:27?AM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm back from travels, but still dealing with Centurylink internet/broadband issues. Hm...
I disagree, Scully. It will take one anonymous phone call to the Board of Psychology in California stating that psychoanalysis is being offered to the public by non-licensed people at PLACE and you will be investigated by the state and potentially sued for providing mental health services (psychoanalysis - which is how it is defined in California statutes) without being licensed to do so in CA State. I am not predicting the outcome... Perhaps even nothing comes of it... but trust me... chances are you will not enjoy yourself for some months... and you will dish out on a lawyer... (I do notrecommend defending yourself... US judges hate that and they have a lot of power regarding their decisions.... they have a completely free range to decide the outcome).
As I have stated before, I don't care what risks people take to do whatever they want in life, but I completely disagree with the statement that absence of a license requirement means a legal permission to practice. I also don't see much point arguing about it. I do have a license, so this particular item is not relevant to me at all and I don't need anybody to convince me about it at all. Please do with yourselves as you wish.
Note for Jacques: There is no national level licensing for anything here. Each state regulates and licenses their own professionals, so whenever you compare France to the US, be aware that you are speaking about 50 different sets of statues, laws, and regulations (not just one). Please also clearly differentiate between criminal law and lawsuits and civil lawsuits (which can be filed by anybody for any reason, and you can't just ignore it...) in the US. I can hold you in court proceedings for years... years... if I have a good reason to be pissed at you and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to keep pushing you to the brink of financial ruin (so you agree to what I and my lawyer wants).
We (US) are a case-based law, once a case is decided in court, it is from that point on considered a law... so once CA State said (in a case as adjudicated by a CA judge) that practicing psychoanalysis means practicing mental health for which a state license is required, it will be considered when someone takes you to court for practicing psychoanalysis without a license to do so.
One thing for sure: someone has to be a complainant. So - if you know what you are doing and why, and with whom... nobody complains, nobody gets sued... but it takes one anonymous phone call to send CA State your way for some truly unexpected fun... and the argument put forth here so far would - most likely - not fly, but... I am not a lawyer, so please... talk to lawyers about it, not psychoanalysts.
Otherwise - indeed - psychoanalysis is impossible anywhere, so what are we actually getting together to talk about... how impossible it is to do what we are not doing? Sounds like a good topic to me. The impossibility of nothing(ness).
Happy (US) Thanksgiving! Gotta go hunt for a wild turkey...
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 9:53?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: Dearest Jacques and Folks,
In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will respond to your question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a question of my own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you will respond to.
But first, in response to the following:
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.), there is no law restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license to practice. The proof of the pudding is you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma, no license, and not sued (if that is your worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even present at the time before last meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing laws in CA was resolved a long time ago, at least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today.
I am not saying some people will not have problems actually establishing an analytic practice ? this impossibility is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US ? in fact, some people have so many problems that all that they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree, then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this professional basis is used as the standard for an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and it is no surprise that people would be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I think the problem is much worse: they should be scared of the s?autotorize which I described in my last missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to enter into a psychoanalytic discourse: no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties, but was there any analysis? In the end, there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and the rest, but it just takes a little more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and fears.
In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since the questions that are being asked about the Laws in the US have been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how to establish fundamentally that one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is only the s?autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing full well that analysis is part of its own clinic).
So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan started a ?Section Clinique? in France whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never left (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic).
Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of practicing Lacanian analysis in France is that the two Apostles, Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a Lacanian Ghetto, with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why Vappereau also left.
So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization of Lacanian analysis in France has made it impossible to work at analysis in France?
I would be relieved if you could answer this question.
Best to you and friends,
ScullyRobert
On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32?AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear friend
To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision. When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis.
Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have legal problems that's fine and great for me.
This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason why I tried to invent a counter measure.
All the best my friend
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation. Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC <https://www.serendipityhealingarts.com> 1.206.451.7020
participants (4)
-
euripides.aviva＠gmail.com -
jacsib＠lutecium.org -
kristopher＠serendipityhealingarts.com -
tate＠netwood.net