From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 10:57:54 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Two new features... Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you can see there are 2 new features 1-- https://www.the-lacanalyst.org/ it opens now only the page with the pdf previously mentioned We have to wait a couple of hours for propagation. Any new post or document can be added by Quinn 2-- A new mailing list is available just send or answer to mails to the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org mail address Archives are private, they're available just for us. So far I chose the signifier "The Lacanalyst" as it's a way figure the dimension of instanciation of a non-analyst, it can be changed or other signifiers can be added. I support this political position that seems to foster Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 14:55:17 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:55:17 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether Message-ID: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Dear colleagues Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:15:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether In-Reply-To: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> References: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I can typically work around other people's schedules. The more notice the better. On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? > > My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being > Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) > > I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Tue Sep 9 21:16:07 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling Message-ID: Jacques, Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. john From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:25:14 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Meeting tomorrow for those who can make it Message-ID: Bonjour, Quinn and I will be meeting tomorrow (Wed) at 6 am PDT. I think the link has been sent out to those who may be able to join. We are in the process of finding a time everyone can make it via Zoom. I can be flexible to meet typically with advance notice. You can see below how I use the term Lacanalysis in my work as I am sending this from my business email. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 05:32:42 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 22:32:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. For me some advance notice works best. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > Jacques, > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > john > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:10:59 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] this is a test Message-ID: <4a0ba940-cc0f-41e9-a241-080125e0dcd7@lutecium.org> discard my friends... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:43:48 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:43:48 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 2 Message-ID: You'll receive probably a series of test, they are used to repair some glitches, just don't care -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:52:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487153.lacatest Message-ID: <1757487153.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 07:00:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:00:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487656.lacatest2 Message-ID: <1757487656.lacatest2@lutecium.org> hello again From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 07:13:55 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:13:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am planning on asking Quinn about his thoughts about how we might transmit the jouissance of the position of the analyst when we meet tomorrow. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about this. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:32?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. > For me some advance notice works best. > > Aviva Euripides > LMFT, Lacanalysis > 415-301-5219 > avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > > > Jacques, > > > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > > > john > > -- > > The-lacanalyst mailing list > > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:41:36 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:41:36 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:01:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:01:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] mbox selfcopy test 1757494902.lacatest-mbox Message-ID: <1757494902.lacatest-mbox@lutecium.org> hello, checking mbox delivery From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:45:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:45:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:45:28 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:45:28 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] maildir spam + selfcopy test 1757497528.lacatest Message-ID: <1757497528.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 10:16:44 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:16:44 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy to mbox 1757499404.selfcopy-list Message-ID: <1757499404.selfcopy-list@lutecium.org> checking selfcopy to mbox From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:39:27 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:39:27 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757504367.selfcopy Message-ID: <1757504367.selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello me again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:50:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:50:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757505033.selfcopy2 Message-ID: <1757505033.selfcopy2@lutecium.org> hello me again (dup flag fixed) From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 14 07:54:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 07:54:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session Message-ID: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Dear friends and colleagues One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? (John is it acceptable for you?) Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quinnfoerch at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 12:11:43 2025 From: quinnfoerch at gmail.com (Quinn Foerch) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:11:43 -0400 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This works for me?I will see you there! Until then, Quinn quinnfoerch.com > On Sep 14, 2025, at 3:56?AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > ? > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 14 15:45:41 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:45:41 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <7634E681-AFF6-4D8C-818C-C2E934D3494D@lmi.net> Jacques, Glad to hear you didn?t get arrested. As this is the time that works for you, I will manage. john > On Sep 14, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 17:54:12 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 10:54:12 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September > 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Mon Sep 15 16:19:04 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <8C55E5C2-7563-407E-BAC6-86B9FFC296E0@lmi.net> 6am. Yes, I know, ungodly. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2025, at 10:54 AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: >> Dear friends and colleagues >> >> One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC >> and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? >> >> (John is it acceptable for you?) >> >> Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 >> >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: QKsj5G >> One tap mobile >> +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US >> +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) >> >> Dial by your location >> +1 309 205 3325 US >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >> +1 360 209 5623 US >> +1 386 347 5053 US >> +1 507 473 4847 US >> +1 564 217 2000 US >> +1 646 931 3860 US >> +1 669 444 9171 US >> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) >> +1 689 278 1000 US >> +1 719 359 4580 US >> +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) >> +1 253 205 0468 US >> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) >> +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) >> +1 305 224 1968 US >> +33 1 7037 9729 France >> +33 1 7095 0103 France >> +33 1 7095 0350 France >> +33 1 8699 5831 France >> +33 1 7037 2246 France >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: 382952 >> Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI >> >> If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 17 16:01:53 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I confirm this date for a Zoom session September 18 For PDT it will be from 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM For the east coast 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM For Paris time 16:00 to 17:30 Jacques On 9/14/25 7:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday > September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 15:18:49 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:18:49 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A new member Message-ID: <4fe454a4-2518-4ebe-9f55-b74e09acaf95@lutecium.org> Dear Friends A very good friend of mine, being interested by the concept of Lacanalysis, is now registered on our mailing list He is French and US citizen. His name is Beno?t Ponsot. He practices psychoanalysis in Paris. Welcome to you and bienvenue ? toi mon ami! Jacques PS Following our last discussion, the archives are now turned public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 16:17:18 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:17:18 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Next Zoom session Message-ID: <5b028521-fe31-4826-80de-79c87dd4899d@lutecium.org> Dear friends A next Zoom session is programmed for? Thursday October 2 at 16:00 Paris time that is 7 AM PDT and 10 AM east coast >/Join Zoom Meeting />/https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 />//>/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: QKsj5G />/One tap mobile />/+13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US />/+13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) />//>/Dial by your location />/+1 309 205 3325 US />/+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) />/+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) />/+1 360 209 5623 US />/+1 386 347 5053 US />/+1 507 473 4847 US />/+1 564 217 2000 US />/+1 646 931 3860 US />/+1 669 444 9171 US />/+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) />/+1 689 278 1000 US />/+1 719 359 4580 US />/+1 929 205 6099 US (New York) />/+1 253 205 0468 US />/+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) />/+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) />/+1 305 224 1968 US />/+33 1 7037 9729 France />/+33 1 7095 0103 France />/+33 1 7095 0350 France />/+33 1 8699 5831 France />/+33 1 7037 2246 France />/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: 382952 />/Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI Jacques / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:30:10 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:30:10 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://academyanalyticarts.org/ragland-transferring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:43:33 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://clacs.ku.edu/faculty-research-travel-grants-prove-good-investment-garibottos-psychoanalysis-project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:46:03 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:46:03 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000592009_A42869610/preview-9781000592009_A42869610.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 08:41:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:41:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA Message-ID: Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 18:44:13 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:44:13 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:49:19 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 , 5 ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 , 4 , 9 ] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 21:38:06 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:38:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] ANALYSIS IN THE US Message-ID: <3C1198FF-6E94-4CC5-B66B-B14DE4574F0B@netwood.net> 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 From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 28 22:15:38 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] > The 2025 regulatory transfer > New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. > Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. > In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. > The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] > [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 23:03:42 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 23:03:42 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: >Kristopher, > >This has been my understanding for as well. > >john > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 23:30:02 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:30:02 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: <280146FC-88F7-46FB-A814-09B9803D3223@netwood.net> 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>> > On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. > Robert tell us my friend! > Jacques > > > On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:54:49 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this > update while recommending caution due to the following existing > information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this > matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current > developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." > -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed > psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state > licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent > legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP > to better protect the public. [1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > , > 4 ] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > > - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" > under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a > psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed > psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 > , > 5 > > ] > > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > > - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" > license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain > graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited > basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third > of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be > engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 > , > 6 , 7 > , > 8 > > ] > > The 2025 regulatory transfer > > - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research > Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California > to the California Board of Psychology. > - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the > addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move > is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of > a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better > public protection. [3 > , > 4 , 9 > ] > > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal > challenges from psychoanalysts. > > - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of > Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal > court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and > Fourteenth Amendments. > - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health > professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health > and safety. [6 > , 10 > , 11 > , 12 > > ] > > [1] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] > https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] > https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >> USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:57:18 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:57:18 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? > > I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. > > But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and > license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document > like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. > > I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as > here people can easily find us. > > Is this illegal or unethical in some way? > It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. > > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Kristopher, >> >> This has been my understanding for as well. >> >> john >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this >> update while recommending caution due to the following existing >> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this >> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current >> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." >> -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed >> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state >> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent >> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP >> to better protect the public. [1 >> , >> 2 >> , >> 3 >> , >> 4 ] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> >> - California's Business and Professions Code includes >> "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as >> a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed >> psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 >> , >> 5 >> >> ] >> >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> >> - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" >> license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain >> graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited >> basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third >> of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be >> engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 >> , >> 6 , 7 >> , >> 8 >> >> ] >> >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> >> - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research >> Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California >> to the California Board of Psychology. >> - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines >> the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This >> move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the >> oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, >> ensuring better public protection. [3 >> , >> 4 , 9 >> ] >> >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal >> challenges from psychoanalysts. >> >> - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of >> Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal >> court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and >> Fourteenth Amendments. >> - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health >> professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health >> and safety. [6 >> , 10 >> , 11 >> , 12 >> >> ] >> >> [1] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] >> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] >> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >>> USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> The-lacanalyst mailing list >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 06:33:06 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:33:06 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: mail problem -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: test 123 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques Siboni 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>> From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 10:00:01 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:00:01 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques B. Siboni 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 > 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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>> >>>> >>>> From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:54:42 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:54:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Scully-Robert, We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:56:55 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:56:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: 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 > To: Jacques B. Siboni > > > > 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 > > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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 > >>> 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>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Mon Sep 29 16:43:00 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Aviva, (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it appropriate, to invite a few others besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks to come to address this question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. Best regards, Scully Robert > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Dear Scully-Robert, > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > 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 From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 16:48:08 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:48:08 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Scully Robert, Oui to all. I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 20:44:28 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the wild west). I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an LMFT(or licensed whatever...). Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, though. Cheers Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 20:57:56 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:57:56 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Kristopher, The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in insurance based practice and one in private practice. I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will return for the next meeting. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering > psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health > services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been > involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues > these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - > personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place > in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about > it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to > contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's > individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good > lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the > wild west). > > I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American > Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical > approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session > is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a > self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile > the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the > freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage > in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes > sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, > you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be > curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an > LMFT(or licensed whatever...). > > Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and > since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be > moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, > though. > > Cheers > Kristopher > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Bonjour Aviva, >> >> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >> >> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >> appropriate, to invite a few others >> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US >> is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks >> to come to address this >> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting >> times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> >> >> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Scully-Robert, >> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >> > Aviva >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> > mail problem >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: test 123 >> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >> > From: Tate >> > To: Jacques Siboni >> > >> > >> > >> > 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>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 21:22:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:22:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Aviva. I don't do insurance at all (private pay only), so this allows me a lot more freedom to work it all out with my patients directly as they would be the only ones filing any complaints that would trigger any investigation (assuming all my services are otherwise equally available to everyone). I also have a job that pays for my healthcare (it would be a few thousand dollars for the two of us otherwise), so I can afford to "do what I want" in my own clinic. It is at once a compromise and a privilege, and gives me what I want... Jacques - jokingly.... if you could only move the seminar from Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (at the same time), my life would be in a full revolution on "my Mobious strip" from the last time I had the pleasure to take a lecture from you to right now :-) Until then... my return is imprecise... LOL... Best, Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:58?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Thank you Kristopher, > > The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do > since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. > > My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in > insurance based practice and one in private practice. > > I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or > afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice > when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will > return for the next meeting. > > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and >> start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to >> provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a >> conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind >> everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national >> licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me >> since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And >> - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No >> interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and >> every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I >> recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the >> EU, this is the wild west). >> >> I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American >> Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical >> approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session >> is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a >> self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile >> the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the >> freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage >> in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes >> sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, >> you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be >> curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an >> LMFT(or licensed whatever...). >> >> Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and >> since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be >> moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, >> though. >> >> Cheers >> Kristopher >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Bonjour Aviva, >>> >>> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >>> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >>> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >>> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >>> appropriate, to invite a few others >>> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the >>> US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the >>> weeks to come to address this >>> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible >>> meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Scully-Robert, >>> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >>> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >>> > Aviva >>> > >>> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> > mail problem >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> > Subject: test 123 >>> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >>> > From: Tate >>> > To: Jacques Siboni >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 06:51:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:51:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side Message-ID: Dear Kristopher About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. Jacques From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 13:41:03 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:41:03 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem in your country (and Germany and other countries) all the best Jacques On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > Bonjour Scully Robert, > Oui to all. > I will make myself available to a time that works for you.? I am > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > wrote: > > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I? already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > it appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? test 123 > > Date:? ?Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From:? ?Tate > > To:? ? ?Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > > From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 16:56:06 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:56:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jacques, Is there a way to consider the sender of the email also a recipient of the same email (instead of being sent an automated confirmation response that the sent email was received by the listserve?). In other words, instead of being sent a received receipt for this email, I would simply see it as an incoming listserv email. This could avoid the questions as to whether or not an email went through and also would eliminate having to delete the confirmation mail since no actual content is there (so extra step/task). Just some ideas to consider as you search for the solution, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:50?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:08:59 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:08:59 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui the more the merrier To clarify I am open to all time possibilities to include everyone I just mean that if someone unfamiliar to us wants to join I myself will defer to Jacques. You can see below how I point to the specifics of my work at this time. I do not work as a psychotherapist and have no interest in psychology-I do operate under my license for financial reasons. I am hopeful that the specification of Lutecium will gain some interest towards our website, work and plus de jouir in general. Next, I will make some Lutecium tee shirts and merch (merchandise), just kidding! *Aviva Euripides* LMFT, Topologos Lutecium Domain 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:44?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 17:37:21 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques and Friends - So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same time, 7am Pacific Time)? I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment for me... LOL...). My very best to everyone, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Kristopher > About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. > For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a > service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. > Jacques > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Notes re Legality of Psychoanalytic Praxis.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:50:14 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:50:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if works for all? At this time we are meeting every other week. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > Jacques and Friends - > > So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a > possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same > time, 7am Pacific Time)? > > I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in > psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a > "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any > authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue > for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in > debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment > for me... LOL...). > > My very best to everyone, > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Kristopher >> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. >> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >> Jacques >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:08:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if > works for all? > > At this time we are meeting every other week. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Jacques and Friends - >> >> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >> >> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >> for me... LOL...). >> >> My very best to everyone, >> Kristopher >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kristopher >>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>> other. >>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >>> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>> Jacques >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:11:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:11:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday > beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < > euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >> works for all? >> >> At this time we are meeting every other week. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >>> Jacques and Friends - >>> >>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>> >>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>> for me... LOL...). >>> >>> My very best to everyone, >>> Kristopher >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Kristopher >>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>> other. >>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:25:42 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:25:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. > Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < > kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > >> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>> works for all? >>> >>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> >>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>> >>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>> >>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>> for me... LOL...). >>>> >>>> My very best to everyone, >>>> Kristopher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>> other. >>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >> >> 1.206.451.7020 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Tue Sep 30 20:31:05 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:31:05 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates Message-ID: Dear Folks, I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and lagging. It will take me a moment also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are available. I would predict by next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact others before confirming. In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and the US, would around 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I cannot work on Fridays Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). Until then, Scully Robert From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:48:00 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:48:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thank you Kristopher. Sorry for my typo. Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:25?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. > > Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the > US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs > ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you > meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current > 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). > > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. >> Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < >> kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: >> >>> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >>> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>>> works for all? >>>> >>>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>>> >>>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>>> >>>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and >>>>> in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>>> for me... LOL...). >>>>> >>>>> My very best to everyone, >>>>> Kristopher >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is >>>>>> not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >>> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >>> >>> 1.206.451.7020 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:51:28 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui this time works for me. Thank you Scully Robert. Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm evenings weekdays? Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and > lagging. It will take me a moment > also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are > available. I would predict by > next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom > meeting. Wednesday nights > so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact > others before confirming. > > In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and > the US, would around > 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I > cannot work on Fridays > Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). > > Until then, > > Scully Robert > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 22:36:07 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? To visualize this: 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Oui this time works for me. > Thank you Scully Robert. > Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? > > Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm > evenings weekdays? > > Aviva > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Folks, >> >> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and >> lagging. It will take me a moment >> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >> available. I would predict by >> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >> others before confirming. >> >> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >> and the US, would around >> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >> cannot work on Fridays >> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >> >> Until then, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 23:02:11 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:02:11 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh yikes On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 3:36?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? > > To visualize this: > > 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris > > 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris > > 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris > > 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> Oui this time works for me. >> Thank you Scully Robert. >> Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? >> >> Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm >> evenings weekdays? >> >> Aviva >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Folks, >>> >>> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe >>> and lagging. It will take me a moment >>> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >>> available. I would predict by >>> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >>> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >>> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >>> others before confirming. >>> >>> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >>> and the US, would around >>> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >>> cannot work on Fridays >>> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >>> >>> Until then, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 10:57:54 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Two new features... Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you can see there are 2 new features 1-- https://www.the-lacanalyst.org/ it opens now only the page with the pdf previously mentioned We have to wait a couple of hours for propagation. Any new post or document can be added by Quinn 2-- A new mailing list is available just send or answer to mails to the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org mail address Archives are private, they're available just for us. So far I chose the signifier "The Lacanalyst" as it's a way figure the dimension of instanciation of a non-analyst, it can be changed or other signifiers can be added. I support this political position that seems to foster Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 14:55:17 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:55:17 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether Message-ID: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Dear colleagues Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:15:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether In-Reply-To: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> References: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I can typically work around other people's schedules. The more notice the better. On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? > > My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being > Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) > > I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Tue Sep 9 21:16:07 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling Message-ID: Jacques, Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. john From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:25:14 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Meeting tomorrow for those who can make it Message-ID: Bonjour, Quinn and I will be meeting tomorrow (Wed) at 6 am PDT. I think the link has been sent out to those who may be able to join. We are in the process of finding a time everyone can make it via Zoom. I can be flexible to meet typically with advance notice. You can see below how I use the term Lacanalysis in my work as I am sending this from my business email. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 05:32:42 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 22:32:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. For me some advance notice works best. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > Jacques, > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > john > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:10:59 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] this is a test Message-ID: <4a0ba940-cc0f-41e9-a241-080125e0dcd7@lutecium.org> discard my friends... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:43:48 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:43:48 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 2 Message-ID: You'll receive probably a series of test, they are used to repair some glitches, just don't care -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:52:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487153.lacatest Message-ID: <1757487153.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 07:00:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:00:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487656.lacatest2 Message-ID: <1757487656.lacatest2@lutecium.org> hello again From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 07:13:55 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:13:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am planning on asking Quinn about his thoughts about how we might transmit the jouissance of the position of the analyst when we meet tomorrow. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about this. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:32?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. > For me some advance notice works best. > > Aviva Euripides > LMFT, Lacanalysis > 415-301-5219 > avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > > > Jacques, > > > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > > > john > > -- > > The-lacanalyst mailing list > > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:41:36 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:41:36 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:01:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:01:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] mbox selfcopy test 1757494902.lacatest-mbox Message-ID: <1757494902.lacatest-mbox@lutecium.org> hello, checking mbox delivery From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:45:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:45:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:45:28 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:45:28 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] maildir spam + selfcopy test 1757497528.lacatest Message-ID: <1757497528.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 10:16:44 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:16:44 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy to mbox 1757499404.selfcopy-list Message-ID: <1757499404.selfcopy-list@lutecium.org> checking selfcopy to mbox From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:39:27 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:39:27 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757504367.selfcopy Message-ID: <1757504367.selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello me again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:50:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:50:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757505033.selfcopy2 Message-ID: <1757505033.selfcopy2@lutecium.org> hello me again (dup flag fixed) From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 14 07:54:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 07:54:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session Message-ID: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Dear friends and colleagues One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? (John is it acceptable for you?) Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quinnfoerch at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 12:11:43 2025 From: quinnfoerch at gmail.com (Quinn Foerch) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:11:43 -0400 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This works for me?I will see you there! Until then, Quinn quinnfoerch.com > On Sep 14, 2025, at 3:56?AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > ? > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 14 15:45:41 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:45:41 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <7634E681-AFF6-4D8C-818C-C2E934D3494D@lmi.net> Jacques, Glad to hear you didn?t get arrested. As this is the time that works for you, I will manage. john > On Sep 14, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 17:54:12 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 10:54:12 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September > 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Mon Sep 15 16:19:04 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <8C55E5C2-7563-407E-BAC6-86B9FFC296E0@lmi.net> 6am. Yes, I know, ungodly. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2025, at 10:54 AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: >> Dear friends and colleagues >> >> One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC >> and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? >> >> (John is it acceptable for you?) >> >> Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 >> >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: QKsj5G >> One tap mobile >> +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US >> +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) >> >> Dial by your location >> +1 309 205 3325 US >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >> +1 360 209 5623 US >> +1 386 347 5053 US >> +1 507 473 4847 US >> +1 564 217 2000 US >> +1 646 931 3860 US >> +1 669 444 9171 US >> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) >> +1 689 278 1000 US >> +1 719 359 4580 US >> +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) >> +1 253 205 0468 US >> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) >> +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) >> +1 305 224 1968 US >> +33 1 7037 9729 France >> +33 1 7095 0103 France >> +33 1 7095 0350 France >> +33 1 8699 5831 France >> +33 1 7037 2246 France >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: 382952 >> Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI >> >> If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 17 16:01:53 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I confirm this date for a Zoom session September 18 For PDT it will be from 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM For the east coast 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM For Paris time 16:00 to 17:30 Jacques On 9/14/25 7:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday > September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 15:18:49 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:18:49 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A new member Message-ID: <4fe454a4-2518-4ebe-9f55-b74e09acaf95@lutecium.org> Dear Friends A very good friend of mine, being interested by the concept of Lacanalysis, is now registered on our mailing list He is French and US citizen. His name is Beno?t Ponsot. He practices psychoanalysis in Paris. Welcome to you and bienvenue ? toi mon ami! Jacques PS Following our last discussion, the archives are now turned public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 16:17:18 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:17:18 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Next Zoom session Message-ID: <5b028521-fe31-4826-80de-79c87dd4899d@lutecium.org> Dear friends A next Zoom session is programmed for? Thursday October 2 at 16:00 Paris time that is 7 AM PDT and 10 AM east coast >/Join Zoom Meeting />/https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 />//>/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: QKsj5G />/One tap mobile />/+13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US />/+13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) />//>/Dial by your location />/+1 309 205 3325 US />/+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) />/+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) />/+1 360 209 5623 US />/+1 386 347 5053 US />/+1 507 473 4847 US />/+1 564 217 2000 US />/+1 646 931 3860 US />/+1 669 444 9171 US />/+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) />/+1 689 278 1000 US />/+1 719 359 4580 US />/+1 929 205 6099 US (New York) />/+1 253 205 0468 US />/+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) />/+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) />/+1 305 224 1968 US />/+33 1 7037 9729 France />/+33 1 7095 0103 France />/+33 1 7095 0350 France />/+33 1 8699 5831 France />/+33 1 7037 2246 France />/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: 382952 />/Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI Jacques / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:30:10 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:30:10 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://academyanalyticarts.org/ragland-transferring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:43:33 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://clacs.ku.edu/faculty-research-travel-grants-prove-good-investment-garibottos-psychoanalysis-project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:46:03 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:46:03 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000592009_A42869610/preview-9781000592009_A42869610.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 08:41:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:41:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA Message-ID: Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 18:44:13 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:44:13 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:49:19 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 , 5 ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 , 4 , 9 ] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 21:38:06 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:38:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] ANALYSIS IN THE US Message-ID: <3C1198FF-6E94-4CC5-B66B-B14DE4574F0B@netwood.net> 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 From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 28 22:15:38 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] > The 2025 regulatory transfer > New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. > Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. > In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. > The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] > [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 23:03:42 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 23:03:42 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: >Kristopher, > >This has been my understanding for as well. > >john > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 23:30:02 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:30:02 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: <280146FC-88F7-46FB-A814-09B9803D3223@netwood.net> 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>> > On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. > Robert tell us my friend! > Jacques > > > On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:54:49 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this > update while recommending caution due to the following existing > information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this > matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current > developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." > -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed > psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state > licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent > legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP > to better protect the public. [1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > , > 4 ] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > > - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" > under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a > psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed > psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 > , > 5 > > ] > > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > > - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" > license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain > graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited > basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third > of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be > engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 > , > 6 , 7 > , > 8 > > ] > > The 2025 regulatory transfer > > - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research > Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California > to the California Board of Psychology. > - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the > addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move > is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of > a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better > public protection. [3 > , > 4 , 9 > ] > > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal > challenges from psychoanalysts. > > - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of > Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal > court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and > Fourteenth Amendments. > - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health > professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health > and safety. [6 > , 10 > , 11 > , 12 > > ] > > [1] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] > https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] > https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >> USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:57:18 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:57:18 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? > > I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. > > But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and > license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document > like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. > > I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as > here people can easily find us. > > Is this illegal or unethical in some way? > It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. > > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Kristopher, >> >> This has been my understanding for as well. >> >> john >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this >> update while recommending caution due to the following existing >> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this >> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current >> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." >> -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed >> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state >> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent >> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP >> to better protect the public. [1 >> , >> 2 >> , >> 3 >> , >> 4 ] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> >> - California's Business and Professions Code includes >> "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as >> a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed >> psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 >> , >> 5 >> >> ] >> >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> >> - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" >> license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain >> graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited >> basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third >> of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be >> engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 >> , >> 6 , 7 >> , >> 8 >> >> ] >> >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> >> - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research >> Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California >> to the California Board of Psychology. >> - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines >> the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This >> move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the >> oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, >> ensuring better public protection. [3 >> , >> 4 , 9 >> ] >> >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal >> challenges from psychoanalysts. >> >> - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of >> Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal >> court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and >> Fourteenth Amendments. >> - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health >> professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health >> and safety. [6 >> , 10 >> , 11 >> , 12 >> >> ] >> >> [1] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] >> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] >> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >>> USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> The-lacanalyst mailing list >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 06:33:06 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:33:06 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: mail problem -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: test 123 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques Siboni 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>> From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 10:00:01 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:00:01 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques B. Siboni 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 > 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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>> >>>> >>>> From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:54:42 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:54:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Scully-Robert, We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:56:55 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:56:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: 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 > To: Jacques B. Siboni > > > > 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 > > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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 > >>> 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>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Mon Sep 29 16:43:00 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Aviva, (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it appropriate, to invite a few others besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks to come to address this question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. Best regards, Scully Robert > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Dear Scully-Robert, > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > 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 From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 16:48:08 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:48:08 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Scully Robert, Oui to all. I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 20:44:28 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the wild west). I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an LMFT(or licensed whatever...). Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, though. Cheers Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 20:57:56 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:57:56 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Kristopher, The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in insurance based practice and one in private practice. I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will return for the next meeting. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering > psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health > services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been > involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues > these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - > personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place > in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about > it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to > contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's > individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good > lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the > wild west). > > I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American > Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical > approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session > is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a > self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile > the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the > freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage > in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes > sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, > you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be > curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an > LMFT(or licensed whatever...). > > Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and > since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be > moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, > though. > > Cheers > Kristopher > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Bonjour Aviva, >> >> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >> >> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >> appropriate, to invite a few others >> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US >> is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks >> to come to address this >> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting >> times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> >> >> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Scully-Robert, >> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >> > Aviva >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> > mail problem >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: test 123 >> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >> > From: Tate >> > To: Jacques Siboni >> > >> > >> > >> > 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>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 21:22:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:22:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Aviva. I don't do insurance at all (private pay only), so this allows me a lot more freedom to work it all out with my patients directly as they would be the only ones filing any complaints that would trigger any investigation (assuming all my services are otherwise equally available to everyone). I also have a job that pays for my healthcare (it would be a few thousand dollars for the two of us otherwise), so I can afford to "do what I want" in my own clinic. It is at once a compromise and a privilege, and gives me what I want... Jacques - jokingly.... if you could only move the seminar from Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (at the same time), my life would be in a full revolution on "my Mobious strip" from the last time I had the pleasure to take a lecture from you to right now :-) Until then... my return is imprecise... LOL... Best, Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:58?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Thank you Kristopher, > > The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do > since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. > > My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in > insurance based practice and one in private practice. > > I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or > afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice > when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will > return for the next meeting. > > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and >> start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to >> provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a >> conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind >> everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national >> licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me >> since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And >> - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No >> interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and >> every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I >> recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the >> EU, this is the wild west). >> >> I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American >> Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical >> approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session >> is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a >> self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile >> the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the >> freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage >> in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes >> sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, >> you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be >> curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an >> LMFT(or licensed whatever...). >> >> Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and >> since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be >> moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, >> though. >> >> Cheers >> Kristopher >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Bonjour Aviva, >>> >>> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >>> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >>> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >>> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >>> appropriate, to invite a few others >>> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the >>> US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the >>> weeks to come to address this >>> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible >>> meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Scully-Robert, >>> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >>> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >>> > Aviva >>> > >>> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> > mail problem >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> > Subject: test 123 >>> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >>> > From: Tate >>> > To: Jacques Siboni >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 06:51:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:51:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side Message-ID: Dear Kristopher About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. Jacques From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 13:41:03 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:41:03 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem in your country (and Germany and other countries) all the best Jacques On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > Bonjour Scully Robert, > Oui to all. > I will make myself available to a time that works for you.? I am > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > wrote: > > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I? already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > it appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? test 123 > > Date:? ?Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From:? ?Tate > > To:? ? ?Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > > From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 16:56:06 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:56:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jacques, Is there a way to consider the sender of the email also a recipient of the same email (instead of being sent an automated confirmation response that the sent email was received by the listserve?). In other words, instead of being sent a received receipt for this email, I would simply see it as an incoming listserv email. This could avoid the questions as to whether or not an email went through and also would eliminate having to delete the confirmation mail since no actual content is there (so extra step/task). Just some ideas to consider as you search for the solution, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:50?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:08:59 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:08:59 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui the more the merrier To clarify I am open to all time possibilities to include everyone I just mean that if someone unfamiliar to us wants to join I myself will defer to Jacques. You can see below how I point to the specifics of my work at this time. I do not work as a psychotherapist and have no interest in psychology-I do operate under my license for financial reasons. I am hopeful that the specification of Lutecium will gain some interest towards our website, work and plus de jouir in general. Next, I will make some Lutecium tee shirts and merch (merchandise), just kidding! *Aviva Euripides* LMFT, Topologos Lutecium Domain 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:44?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 17:37:21 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques and Friends - So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same time, 7am Pacific Time)? I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment for me... LOL...). My very best to everyone, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Kristopher > About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. > For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a > service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. > Jacques > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Notes re Legality of Psychoanalytic Praxis.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:50:14 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:50:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if works for all? At this time we are meeting every other week. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > Jacques and Friends - > > So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a > possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same > time, 7am Pacific Time)? > > I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in > psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a > "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any > authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue > for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in > debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment > for me... LOL...). > > My very best to everyone, > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Kristopher >> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. >> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >> Jacques >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:08:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if > works for all? > > At this time we are meeting every other week. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Jacques and Friends - >> >> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >> >> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >> for me... LOL...). >> >> My very best to everyone, >> Kristopher >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kristopher >>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>> other. >>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >>> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>> Jacques >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:11:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:11:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday > beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < > euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >> works for all? >> >> At this time we are meeting every other week. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >>> Jacques and Friends - >>> >>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>> >>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>> for me... LOL...). >>> >>> My very best to everyone, >>> Kristopher >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Kristopher >>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>> other. >>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:25:42 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:25:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. > Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < > kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > >> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>> works for all? >>> >>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> >>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>> >>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>> >>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>> for me... LOL...). >>>> >>>> My very best to everyone, >>>> Kristopher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>> other. >>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >> >> 1.206.451.7020 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Tue Sep 30 20:31:05 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:31:05 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates Message-ID: Dear Folks, I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and lagging. It will take me a moment also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are available. I would predict by next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact others before confirming. In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and the US, would around 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I cannot work on Fridays Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). Until then, Scully Robert From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:48:00 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:48:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thank you Kristopher. Sorry for my typo. Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:25?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. > > Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the > US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs > ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you > meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current > 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). > > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. >> Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < >> kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: >> >>> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >>> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>>> works for all? >>>> >>>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>>> >>>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>>> >>>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and >>>>> in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>>> for me... LOL...). >>>>> >>>>> My very best to everyone, >>>>> Kristopher >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is >>>>>> not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >>> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >>> >>> 1.206.451.7020 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:51:28 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui this time works for me. Thank you Scully Robert. Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm evenings weekdays? Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and > lagging. It will take me a moment > also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are > available. I would predict by > next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom > meeting. Wednesday nights > so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact > others before confirming. > > In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and > the US, would around > 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I > cannot work on Fridays > Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). > > Until then, > > Scully Robert > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 22:36:07 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? To visualize this: 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Oui this time works for me. > Thank you Scully Robert. > Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? > > Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm > evenings weekdays? > > Aviva > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Folks, >> >> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and >> lagging. It will take me a moment >> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >> available. I would predict by >> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >> others before confirming. >> >> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >> and the US, would around >> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >> cannot work on Fridays >> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >> >> Until then, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 23:02:11 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:02:11 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh yikes On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 3:36?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? > > To visualize this: > > 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris > > 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris > > 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris > > 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> Oui this time works for me. >> Thank you Scully Robert. >> Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? >> >> Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm >> evenings weekdays? >> >> Aviva >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Folks, >>> >>> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe >>> and lagging. It will take me a moment >>> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >>> available. I would predict by >>> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >>> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >>> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >>> others before confirming. >>> >>> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >>> and the US, would around >>> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >>> cannot work on Fridays >>> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >>> >>> Until then, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 10:57:54 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Two new features... Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you can see there are 2 new features 1-- https://www.the-lacanalyst.org/ it opens now only the page with the pdf previously mentioned We have to wait a couple of hours for propagation. Any new post or document can be added by Quinn 2-- A new mailing list is available just send or answer to mails to the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org mail address Archives are private, they're available just for us. So far I chose the signifier "The Lacanalyst" as it's a way figure the dimension of instanciation of a non-analyst, it can be changed or other signifiers can be added. I support this political position that seems to foster Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 14:55:17 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:55:17 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether Message-ID: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Dear colleagues Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:15:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether In-Reply-To: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> References: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I can typically work around other people's schedules. The more notice the better. On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? > > My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being > Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) > > I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Tue Sep 9 21:16:07 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling Message-ID: Jacques, Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. john From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:25:14 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Meeting tomorrow for those who can make it Message-ID: Bonjour, Quinn and I will be meeting tomorrow (Wed) at 6 am PDT. I think the link has been sent out to those who may be able to join. We are in the process of finding a time everyone can make it via Zoom. I can be flexible to meet typically with advance notice. You can see below how I use the term Lacanalysis in my work as I am sending this from my business email. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 05:32:42 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 22:32:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. For me some advance notice works best. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > Jacques, > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > john > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:10:59 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] this is a test Message-ID: <4a0ba940-cc0f-41e9-a241-080125e0dcd7@lutecium.org> discard my friends... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:43:48 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:43:48 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 2 Message-ID: You'll receive probably a series of test, they are used to repair some glitches, just don't care -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:52:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487153.lacatest Message-ID: <1757487153.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 07:00:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:00:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487656.lacatest2 Message-ID: <1757487656.lacatest2@lutecium.org> hello again From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 07:13:55 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:13:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am planning on asking Quinn about his thoughts about how we might transmit the jouissance of the position of the analyst when we meet tomorrow. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about this. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:32?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. > For me some advance notice works best. > > Aviva Euripides > LMFT, Lacanalysis > 415-301-5219 > avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > > > Jacques, > > > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > > > john > > -- > > The-lacanalyst mailing list > > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:41:36 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:41:36 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:01:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:01:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] mbox selfcopy test 1757494902.lacatest-mbox Message-ID: <1757494902.lacatest-mbox@lutecium.org> hello, checking mbox delivery From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:45:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:45:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:45:28 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:45:28 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] maildir spam + selfcopy test 1757497528.lacatest Message-ID: <1757497528.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 10:16:44 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:16:44 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy to mbox 1757499404.selfcopy-list Message-ID: <1757499404.selfcopy-list@lutecium.org> checking selfcopy to mbox From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:39:27 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:39:27 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757504367.selfcopy Message-ID: <1757504367.selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello me again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:50:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:50:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757505033.selfcopy2 Message-ID: <1757505033.selfcopy2@lutecium.org> hello me again (dup flag fixed) From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 14 07:54:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 07:54:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session Message-ID: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Dear friends and colleagues One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? (John is it acceptable for you?) Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quinnfoerch at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 12:11:43 2025 From: quinnfoerch at gmail.com (Quinn Foerch) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:11:43 -0400 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This works for me?I will see you there! Until then, Quinn quinnfoerch.com > On Sep 14, 2025, at 3:56?AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > ? > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 14 15:45:41 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:45:41 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <7634E681-AFF6-4D8C-818C-C2E934D3494D@lmi.net> Jacques, Glad to hear you didn?t get arrested. As this is the time that works for you, I will manage. john > On Sep 14, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 17:54:12 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 10:54:12 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September > 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Mon Sep 15 16:19:04 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <8C55E5C2-7563-407E-BAC6-86B9FFC296E0@lmi.net> 6am. Yes, I know, ungodly. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2025, at 10:54 AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: >> Dear friends and colleagues >> >> One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC >> and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? >> >> (John is it acceptable for you?) >> >> Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 >> >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: QKsj5G >> One tap mobile >> +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US >> +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) >> >> Dial by your location >> +1 309 205 3325 US >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >> +1 360 209 5623 US >> +1 386 347 5053 US >> +1 507 473 4847 US >> +1 564 217 2000 US >> +1 646 931 3860 US >> +1 669 444 9171 US >> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) >> +1 689 278 1000 US >> +1 719 359 4580 US >> +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) >> +1 253 205 0468 US >> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) >> +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) >> +1 305 224 1968 US >> +33 1 7037 9729 France >> +33 1 7095 0103 France >> +33 1 7095 0350 France >> +33 1 8699 5831 France >> +33 1 7037 2246 France >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: 382952 >> Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI >> >> If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 17 16:01:53 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I confirm this date for a Zoom session September 18 For PDT it will be from 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM For the east coast 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM For Paris time 16:00 to 17:30 Jacques On 9/14/25 7:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday > September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 15:18:49 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:18:49 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A new member Message-ID: <4fe454a4-2518-4ebe-9f55-b74e09acaf95@lutecium.org> Dear Friends A very good friend of mine, being interested by the concept of Lacanalysis, is now registered on our mailing list He is French and US citizen. His name is Beno?t Ponsot. He practices psychoanalysis in Paris. Welcome to you and bienvenue ? toi mon ami! Jacques PS Following our last discussion, the archives are now turned public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 16:17:18 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:17:18 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Next Zoom session Message-ID: <5b028521-fe31-4826-80de-79c87dd4899d@lutecium.org> Dear friends A next Zoom session is programmed for? Thursday October 2 at 16:00 Paris time that is 7 AM PDT and 10 AM east coast >/Join Zoom Meeting />/https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 />//>/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: QKsj5G />/One tap mobile />/+13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US />/+13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) />//>/Dial by your location />/+1 309 205 3325 US />/+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) />/+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) />/+1 360 209 5623 US />/+1 386 347 5053 US />/+1 507 473 4847 US />/+1 564 217 2000 US />/+1 646 931 3860 US />/+1 669 444 9171 US />/+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) />/+1 689 278 1000 US />/+1 719 359 4580 US />/+1 929 205 6099 US (New York) />/+1 253 205 0468 US />/+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) />/+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) />/+1 305 224 1968 US />/+33 1 7037 9729 France />/+33 1 7095 0103 France />/+33 1 7095 0350 France />/+33 1 8699 5831 France />/+33 1 7037 2246 France />/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: 382952 />/Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI Jacques / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:30:10 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:30:10 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://academyanalyticarts.org/ragland-transferring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:43:33 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://clacs.ku.edu/faculty-research-travel-grants-prove-good-investment-garibottos-psychoanalysis-project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:46:03 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:46:03 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000592009_A42869610/preview-9781000592009_A42869610.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 08:41:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:41:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA Message-ID: Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 18:44:13 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:44:13 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:49:19 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 , 5 ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 , 4 , 9 ] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 21:38:06 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:38:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] ANALYSIS IN THE US Message-ID: <3C1198FF-6E94-4CC5-B66B-B14DE4574F0B@netwood.net> 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 From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 28 22:15:38 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] > The 2025 regulatory transfer > New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. > Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. > In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. > The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] > [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 23:03:42 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 23:03:42 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: >Kristopher, > >This has been my understanding for as well. > >john > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 23:30:02 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:30:02 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: <280146FC-88F7-46FB-A814-09B9803D3223@netwood.net> 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>> > On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. > Robert tell us my friend! > Jacques > > > On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:54:49 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this > update while recommending caution due to the following existing > information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this > matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current > developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." > -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed > psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state > licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent > legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP > to better protect the public. [1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > , > 4 ] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > > - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" > under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a > psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed > psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 > , > 5 > > ] > > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > > - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" > license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain > graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited > basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third > of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be > engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 > , > 6 , 7 > , > 8 > > ] > > The 2025 regulatory transfer > > - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research > Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California > to the California Board of Psychology. > - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the > addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move > is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of > a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better > public protection. [3 > , > 4 , 9 > ] > > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal > challenges from psychoanalysts. > > - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of > Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal > court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and > Fourteenth Amendments. > - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health > professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health > and safety. [6 > , 10 > , 11 > , 12 > > ] > > [1] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] > https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] > https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >> USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:57:18 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:57:18 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? > > I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. > > But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and > license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document > like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. > > I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as > here people can easily find us. > > Is this illegal or unethical in some way? > It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. > > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Kristopher, >> >> This has been my understanding for as well. >> >> john >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this >> update while recommending caution due to the following existing >> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this >> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current >> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." >> -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed >> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state >> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent >> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP >> to better protect the public. [1 >> , >> 2 >> , >> 3 >> , >> 4 ] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> >> - California's Business and Professions Code includes >> "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as >> a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed >> psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 >> , >> 5 >> >> ] >> >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> >> - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" >> license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain >> graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited >> basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third >> of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be >> engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 >> , >> 6 , 7 >> , >> 8 >> >> ] >> >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> >> - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research >> Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California >> to the California Board of Psychology. >> - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines >> the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This >> move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the >> oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, >> ensuring better public protection. [3 >> , >> 4 , 9 >> ] >> >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal >> challenges from psychoanalysts. >> >> - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of >> Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal >> court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and >> Fourteenth Amendments. >> - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health >> professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health >> and safety. [6 >> , 10 >> , 11 >> , 12 >> >> ] >> >> [1] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] >> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] >> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >>> USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> The-lacanalyst mailing list >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 06:33:06 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:33:06 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: mail problem -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: test 123 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques Siboni 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>> From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 10:00:01 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:00:01 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques B. Siboni 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 > 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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>> >>>> >>>> From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:54:42 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:54:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Scully-Robert, We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:56:55 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:56:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: 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 > To: Jacques B. Siboni > > > > 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 > > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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 > >>> 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>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Mon Sep 29 16:43:00 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Aviva, (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it appropriate, to invite a few others besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks to come to address this question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. Best regards, Scully Robert > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Dear Scully-Robert, > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > 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 From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 16:48:08 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:48:08 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Scully Robert, Oui to all. I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 20:44:28 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the wild west). I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an LMFT(or licensed whatever...). Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, though. Cheers Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 20:57:56 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:57:56 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Kristopher, The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in insurance based practice and one in private practice. I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will return for the next meeting. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering > psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health > services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been > involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues > these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - > personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place > in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about > it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to > contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's > individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good > lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the > wild west). > > I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American > Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical > approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session > is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a > self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile > the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the > freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage > in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes > sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, > you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be > curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an > LMFT(or licensed whatever...). > > Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and > since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be > moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, > though. > > Cheers > Kristopher > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Bonjour Aviva, >> >> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >> >> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >> appropriate, to invite a few others >> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US >> is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks >> to come to address this >> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting >> times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> >> >> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Scully-Robert, >> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >> > Aviva >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> > mail problem >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: test 123 >> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >> > From: Tate >> > To: Jacques Siboni >> > >> > >> > >> > 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>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 21:22:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:22:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Aviva. I don't do insurance at all (private pay only), so this allows me a lot more freedom to work it all out with my patients directly as they would be the only ones filing any complaints that would trigger any investigation (assuming all my services are otherwise equally available to everyone). I also have a job that pays for my healthcare (it would be a few thousand dollars for the two of us otherwise), so I can afford to "do what I want" in my own clinic. It is at once a compromise and a privilege, and gives me what I want... Jacques - jokingly.... if you could only move the seminar from Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (at the same time), my life would be in a full revolution on "my Mobious strip" from the last time I had the pleasure to take a lecture from you to right now :-) Until then... my return is imprecise... LOL... Best, Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:58?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Thank you Kristopher, > > The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do > since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. > > My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in > insurance based practice and one in private practice. > > I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or > afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice > when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will > return for the next meeting. > > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and >> start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to >> provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a >> conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind >> everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national >> licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me >> since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And >> - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No >> interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and >> every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I >> recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the >> EU, this is the wild west). >> >> I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American >> Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical >> approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session >> is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a >> self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile >> the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the >> freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage >> in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes >> sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, >> you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be >> curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an >> LMFT(or licensed whatever...). >> >> Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and >> since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be >> moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, >> though. >> >> Cheers >> Kristopher >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Bonjour Aviva, >>> >>> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >>> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >>> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >>> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >>> appropriate, to invite a few others >>> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the >>> US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the >>> weeks to come to address this >>> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible >>> meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Scully-Robert, >>> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >>> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >>> > Aviva >>> > >>> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> > mail problem >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> > Subject: test 123 >>> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >>> > From: Tate >>> > To: Jacques Siboni >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 06:51:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:51:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side Message-ID: Dear Kristopher About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. Jacques From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 13:41:03 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:41:03 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem in your country (and Germany and other countries) all the best Jacques On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > Bonjour Scully Robert, > Oui to all. > I will make myself available to a time that works for you.? I am > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > wrote: > > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I? already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > it appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? test 123 > > Date:? ?Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From:? ?Tate > > To:? ? ?Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > > From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 16:56:06 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:56:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jacques, Is there a way to consider the sender of the email also a recipient of the same email (instead of being sent an automated confirmation response that the sent email was received by the listserve?). In other words, instead of being sent a received receipt for this email, I would simply see it as an incoming listserv email. This could avoid the questions as to whether or not an email went through and also would eliminate having to delete the confirmation mail since no actual content is there (so extra step/task). Just some ideas to consider as you search for the solution, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:50?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:08:59 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:08:59 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui the more the merrier To clarify I am open to all time possibilities to include everyone I just mean that if someone unfamiliar to us wants to join I myself will defer to Jacques. You can see below how I point to the specifics of my work at this time. I do not work as a psychotherapist and have no interest in psychology-I do operate under my license for financial reasons. I am hopeful that the specification of Lutecium will gain some interest towards our website, work and plus de jouir in general. Next, I will make some Lutecium tee shirts and merch (merchandise), just kidding! *Aviva Euripides* LMFT, Topologos Lutecium Domain 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:44?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 17:37:21 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques and Friends - So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same time, 7am Pacific Time)? I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment for me... LOL...). My very best to everyone, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Kristopher > About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. > For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a > service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. > Jacques > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Notes re Legality of Psychoanalytic Praxis.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:50:14 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:50:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if works for all? At this time we are meeting every other week. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > Jacques and Friends - > > So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a > possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same > time, 7am Pacific Time)? > > I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in > psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a > "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any > authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue > for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in > debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment > for me... LOL...). > > My very best to everyone, > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Kristopher >> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. >> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >> Jacques >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:08:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if > works for all? > > At this time we are meeting every other week. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Jacques and Friends - >> >> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >> >> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >> for me... LOL...). >> >> My very best to everyone, >> Kristopher >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kristopher >>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>> other. >>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >>> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>> Jacques >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:11:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:11:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday > beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < > euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >> works for all? >> >> At this time we are meeting every other week. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >>> Jacques and Friends - >>> >>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>> >>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>> for me... LOL...). >>> >>> My very best to everyone, >>> Kristopher >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Kristopher >>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>> other. >>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:25:42 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:25:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. > Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < > kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > >> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>> works for all? >>> >>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> >>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>> >>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>> >>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>> for me... LOL...). >>>> >>>> My very best to everyone, >>>> Kristopher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>> other. >>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >> >> 1.206.451.7020 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Tue Sep 30 20:31:05 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:31:05 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates Message-ID: Dear Folks, I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and lagging. It will take me a moment also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are available. I would predict by next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact others before confirming. In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and the US, would around 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I cannot work on Fridays Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). Until then, Scully Robert From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:48:00 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:48:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thank you Kristopher. Sorry for my typo. Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:25?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. > > Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the > US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs > ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you > meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current > 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). > > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. >> Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < >> kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: >> >>> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >>> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>>> works for all? >>>> >>>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>>> >>>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>>> >>>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and >>>>> in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>>> for me... LOL...). >>>>> >>>>> My very best to everyone, >>>>> Kristopher >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is >>>>>> not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >>> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >>> >>> 1.206.451.7020 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:51:28 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui this time works for me. Thank you Scully Robert. Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm evenings weekdays? Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and > lagging. It will take me a moment > also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are > available. I would predict by > next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom > meeting. Wednesday nights > so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact > others before confirming. > > In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and > the US, would around > 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I > cannot work on Fridays > Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). > > Until then, > > Scully Robert > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 22:36:07 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? To visualize this: 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Oui this time works for me. > Thank you Scully Robert. > Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? > > Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm > evenings weekdays? > > Aviva > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Folks, >> >> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and >> lagging. It will take me a moment >> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >> available. I would predict by >> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >> others before confirming. >> >> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >> and the US, would around >> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >> cannot work on Fridays >> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >> >> Until then, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 23:02:11 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:02:11 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh yikes On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 3:36?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? > > To visualize this: > > 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris > > 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris > > 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris > > 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> Oui this time works for me. >> Thank you Scully Robert. >> Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? >> >> Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm >> evenings weekdays? >> >> Aviva >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Folks, >>> >>> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe >>> and lagging. It will take me a moment >>> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >>> available. I would predict by >>> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >>> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >>> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >>> others before confirming. >>> >>> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >>> and the US, would around >>> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >>> cannot work on Fridays >>> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >>> >>> Until then, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 10:57:54 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Two new features... Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you can see there are 2 new features 1-- https://www.the-lacanalyst.org/ it opens now only the page with the pdf previously mentioned We have to wait a couple of hours for propagation. Any new post or document can be added by Quinn 2-- A new mailing list is available just send or answer to mails to the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org mail address Archives are private, they're available just for us. So far I chose the signifier "The Lacanalyst" as it's a way figure the dimension of instanciation of a non-analyst, it can be changed or other signifiers can be added. I support this political position that seems to foster Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 14:55:17 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:55:17 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether Message-ID: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Dear colleagues Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:15:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether In-Reply-To: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> References: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I can typically work around other people's schedules. The more notice the better. On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? > > My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being > Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) > > I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Tue Sep 9 21:16:07 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling Message-ID: Jacques, Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. john From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:25:14 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Meeting tomorrow for those who can make it Message-ID: Bonjour, Quinn and I will be meeting tomorrow (Wed) at 6 am PDT. I think the link has been sent out to those who may be able to join. We are in the process of finding a time everyone can make it via Zoom. I can be flexible to meet typically with advance notice. You can see below how I use the term Lacanalysis in my work as I am sending this from my business email. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 05:32:42 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 22:32:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. For me some advance notice works best. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > Jacques, > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > john > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:10:59 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] this is a test Message-ID: <4a0ba940-cc0f-41e9-a241-080125e0dcd7@lutecium.org> discard my friends... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:43:48 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:43:48 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 2 Message-ID: You'll receive probably a series of test, they are used to repair some glitches, just don't care -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:52:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487153.lacatest Message-ID: <1757487153.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 07:00:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:00:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487656.lacatest2 Message-ID: <1757487656.lacatest2@lutecium.org> hello again From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 07:13:55 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:13:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am planning on asking Quinn about his thoughts about how we might transmit the jouissance of the position of the analyst when we meet tomorrow. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about this. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:32?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. > For me some advance notice works best. > > Aviva Euripides > LMFT, Lacanalysis > 415-301-5219 > avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > > > Jacques, > > > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > > > john > > -- > > The-lacanalyst mailing list > > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:41:36 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:41:36 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:01:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:01:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] mbox selfcopy test 1757494902.lacatest-mbox Message-ID: <1757494902.lacatest-mbox@lutecium.org> hello, checking mbox delivery From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:45:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:45:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:45:28 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:45:28 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] maildir spam + selfcopy test 1757497528.lacatest Message-ID: <1757497528.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 10:16:44 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:16:44 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy to mbox 1757499404.selfcopy-list Message-ID: <1757499404.selfcopy-list@lutecium.org> checking selfcopy to mbox From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:39:27 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:39:27 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757504367.selfcopy Message-ID: <1757504367.selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello me again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:50:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:50:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757505033.selfcopy2 Message-ID: <1757505033.selfcopy2@lutecium.org> hello me again (dup flag fixed) From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 14 07:54:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 07:54:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session Message-ID: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Dear friends and colleagues One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? (John is it acceptable for you?) Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quinnfoerch at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 12:11:43 2025 From: quinnfoerch at gmail.com (Quinn Foerch) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:11:43 -0400 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This works for me?I will see you there! Until then, Quinn quinnfoerch.com > On Sep 14, 2025, at 3:56?AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > ? > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 14 15:45:41 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:45:41 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <7634E681-AFF6-4D8C-818C-C2E934D3494D@lmi.net> Jacques, Glad to hear you didn?t get arrested. As this is the time that works for you, I will manage. john > On Sep 14, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 17:54:12 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 10:54:12 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September > 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Mon Sep 15 16:19:04 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <8C55E5C2-7563-407E-BAC6-86B9FFC296E0@lmi.net> 6am. Yes, I know, ungodly. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2025, at 10:54 AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: >> Dear friends and colleagues >> >> One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC >> and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? >> >> (John is it acceptable for you?) >> >> Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 >> >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: QKsj5G >> One tap mobile >> +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US >> +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) >> >> Dial by your location >> +1 309 205 3325 US >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >> +1 360 209 5623 US >> +1 386 347 5053 US >> +1 507 473 4847 US >> +1 564 217 2000 US >> +1 646 931 3860 US >> +1 669 444 9171 US >> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) >> +1 689 278 1000 US >> +1 719 359 4580 US >> +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) >> +1 253 205 0468 US >> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) >> +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) >> +1 305 224 1968 US >> +33 1 7037 9729 France >> +33 1 7095 0103 France >> +33 1 7095 0350 France >> +33 1 8699 5831 France >> +33 1 7037 2246 France >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: 382952 >> Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI >> >> If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 17 16:01:53 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I confirm this date for a Zoom session September 18 For PDT it will be from 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM For the east coast 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM For Paris time 16:00 to 17:30 Jacques On 9/14/25 7:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday > September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 15:18:49 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:18:49 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A new member Message-ID: <4fe454a4-2518-4ebe-9f55-b74e09acaf95@lutecium.org> Dear Friends A very good friend of mine, being interested by the concept of Lacanalysis, is now registered on our mailing list He is French and US citizen. His name is Beno?t Ponsot. He practices psychoanalysis in Paris. Welcome to you and bienvenue ? toi mon ami! Jacques PS Following our last discussion, the archives are now turned public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 16:17:18 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:17:18 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Next Zoom session Message-ID: <5b028521-fe31-4826-80de-79c87dd4899d@lutecium.org> Dear friends A next Zoom session is programmed for? Thursday October 2 at 16:00 Paris time that is 7 AM PDT and 10 AM east coast >/Join Zoom Meeting />/https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 />//>/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: QKsj5G />/One tap mobile />/+13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US />/+13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) />//>/Dial by your location />/+1 309 205 3325 US />/+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) />/+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) />/+1 360 209 5623 US />/+1 386 347 5053 US />/+1 507 473 4847 US />/+1 564 217 2000 US />/+1 646 931 3860 US />/+1 669 444 9171 US />/+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) />/+1 689 278 1000 US />/+1 719 359 4580 US />/+1 929 205 6099 US (New York) />/+1 253 205 0468 US />/+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) />/+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) />/+1 305 224 1968 US />/+33 1 7037 9729 France />/+33 1 7095 0103 France />/+33 1 7095 0350 France />/+33 1 8699 5831 France />/+33 1 7037 2246 France />/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: 382952 />/Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI Jacques / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:30:10 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:30:10 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://academyanalyticarts.org/ragland-transferring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:43:33 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://clacs.ku.edu/faculty-research-travel-grants-prove-good-investment-garibottos-psychoanalysis-project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:46:03 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:46:03 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000592009_A42869610/preview-9781000592009_A42869610.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 08:41:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:41:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA Message-ID: Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 18:44:13 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:44:13 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:49:19 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 , 5 ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 , 4 , 9 ] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 21:38:06 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:38:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] ANALYSIS IN THE US Message-ID: <3C1198FF-6E94-4CC5-B66B-B14DE4574F0B@netwood.net> 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 From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 28 22:15:38 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] > The 2025 regulatory transfer > New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. > Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. > In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. > The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] > [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 23:03:42 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 23:03:42 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: >Kristopher, > >This has been my understanding for as well. > >john > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 23:30:02 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:30:02 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: <280146FC-88F7-46FB-A814-09B9803D3223@netwood.net> 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>> > On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. > Robert tell us my friend! > Jacques > > > On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:54:49 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this > update while recommending caution due to the following existing > information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this > matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current > developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." > -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed > psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state > licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent > legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP > to better protect the public. [1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > , > 4 ] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > > - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" > under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a > psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed > psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 > , > 5 > > ] > > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > > - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" > license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain > graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited > basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third > of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be > engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 > , > 6 , 7 > , > 8 > > ] > > The 2025 regulatory transfer > > - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research > Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California > to the California Board of Psychology. > - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the > addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move > is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of > a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better > public protection. [3 > , > 4 , 9 > ] > > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal > challenges from psychoanalysts. > > - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of > Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal > court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and > Fourteenth Amendments. > - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health > professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health > and safety. [6 > , 10 > , 11 > , 12 > > ] > > [1] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] > https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] > https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >> USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:57:18 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:57:18 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? > > I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. > > But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and > license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document > like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. > > I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as > here people can easily find us. > > Is this illegal or unethical in some way? > It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. > > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Kristopher, >> >> This has been my understanding for as well. >> >> john >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this >> update while recommending caution due to the following existing >> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this >> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current >> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." >> -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed >> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state >> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent >> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP >> to better protect the public. [1 >> , >> 2 >> , >> 3 >> , >> 4 ] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> >> - California's Business and Professions Code includes >> "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as >> a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed >> psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 >> , >> 5 >> >> ] >> >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> >> - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" >> license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain >> graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited >> basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third >> of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be >> engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 >> , >> 6 , 7 >> , >> 8 >> >> ] >> >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> >> - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research >> Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California >> to the California Board of Psychology. >> - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines >> the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This >> move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the >> oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, >> ensuring better public protection. [3 >> , >> 4 , 9 >> ] >> >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal >> challenges from psychoanalysts. >> >> - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of >> Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal >> court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and >> Fourteenth Amendments. >> - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health >> professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health >> and safety. [6 >> , 10 >> , 11 >> , 12 >> >> ] >> >> [1] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] >> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] >> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >>> USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> The-lacanalyst mailing list >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 06:33:06 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:33:06 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: mail problem -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: test 123 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques Siboni 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>> From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 10:00:01 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:00:01 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques B. Siboni 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 > 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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>> >>>> >>>> From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:54:42 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:54:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Scully-Robert, We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:56:55 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:56:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: 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 > To: Jacques B. Siboni > > > > 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 > > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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 > >>> 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>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Mon Sep 29 16:43:00 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Aviva, (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it appropriate, to invite a few others besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks to come to address this question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. Best regards, Scully Robert > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Dear Scully-Robert, > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > 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 From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 16:48:08 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:48:08 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Scully Robert, Oui to all. I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 20:44:28 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the wild west). I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an LMFT(or licensed whatever...). Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, though. Cheers Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 20:57:56 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:57:56 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Kristopher, The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in insurance based practice and one in private practice. I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will return for the next meeting. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering > psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health > services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been > involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues > these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - > personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place > in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about > it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to > contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's > individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good > lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the > wild west). > > I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American > Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical > approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session > is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a > self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile > the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the > freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage > in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes > sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, > you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be > curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an > LMFT(or licensed whatever...). > > Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and > since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be > moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, > though. > > Cheers > Kristopher > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Bonjour Aviva, >> >> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >> >> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >> appropriate, to invite a few others >> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US >> is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks >> to come to address this >> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting >> times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> >> >> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Scully-Robert, >> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >> > Aviva >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> > mail problem >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: test 123 >> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >> > From: Tate >> > To: Jacques Siboni >> > >> > >> > >> > 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>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 21:22:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:22:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Aviva. I don't do insurance at all (private pay only), so this allows me a lot more freedom to work it all out with my patients directly as they would be the only ones filing any complaints that would trigger any investigation (assuming all my services are otherwise equally available to everyone). I also have a job that pays for my healthcare (it would be a few thousand dollars for the two of us otherwise), so I can afford to "do what I want" in my own clinic. It is at once a compromise and a privilege, and gives me what I want... Jacques - jokingly.... if you could only move the seminar from Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (at the same time), my life would be in a full revolution on "my Mobious strip" from the last time I had the pleasure to take a lecture from you to right now :-) Until then... my return is imprecise... LOL... Best, Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:58?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Thank you Kristopher, > > The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do > since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. > > My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in > insurance based practice and one in private practice. > > I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or > afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice > when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will > return for the next meeting. > > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and >> start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to >> provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a >> conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind >> everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national >> licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me >> since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And >> - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No >> interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and >> every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I >> recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the >> EU, this is the wild west). >> >> I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American >> Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical >> approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session >> is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a >> self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile >> the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the >> freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage >> in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes >> sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, >> you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be >> curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an >> LMFT(or licensed whatever...). >> >> Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and >> since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be >> moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, >> though. >> >> Cheers >> Kristopher >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Bonjour Aviva, >>> >>> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >>> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >>> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >>> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >>> appropriate, to invite a few others >>> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the >>> US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the >>> weeks to come to address this >>> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible >>> meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Scully-Robert, >>> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >>> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >>> > Aviva >>> > >>> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> > mail problem >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> > Subject: test 123 >>> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >>> > From: Tate >>> > To: Jacques Siboni >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 06:51:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:51:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side Message-ID: Dear Kristopher About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. Jacques From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 13:41:03 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:41:03 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem in your country (and Germany and other countries) all the best Jacques On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > Bonjour Scully Robert, > Oui to all. > I will make myself available to a time that works for you.? I am > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > wrote: > > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I? already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > it appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? test 123 > > Date:? ?Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From:? ?Tate > > To:? ? ?Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > > From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 16:56:06 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:56:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jacques, Is there a way to consider the sender of the email also a recipient of the same email (instead of being sent an automated confirmation response that the sent email was received by the listserve?). In other words, instead of being sent a received receipt for this email, I would simply see it as an incoming listserv email. This could avoid the questions as to whether or not an email went through and also would eliminate having to delete the confirmation mail since no actual content is there (so extra step/task). Just some ideas to consider as you search for the solution, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:50?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:08:59 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:08:59 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui the more the merrier To clarify I am open to all time possibilities to include everyone I just mean that if someone unfamiliar to us wants to join I myself will defer to Jacques. You can see below how I point to the specifics of my work at this time. I do not work as a psychotherapist and have no interest in psychology-I do operate under my license for financial reasons. I am hopeful that the specification of Lutecium will gain some interest towards our website, work and plus de jouir in general. Next, I will make some Lutecium tee shirts and merch (merchandise), just kidding! *Aviva Euripides* LMFT, Topologos Lutecium Domain 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:44?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 17:37:21 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques and Friends - So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same time, 7am Pacific Time)? I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment for me... LOL...). My very best to everyone, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Kristopher > About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. > For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a > service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. > Jacques > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Notes re Legality of Psychoanalytic Praxis.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:50:14 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:50:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if works for all? At this time we are meeting every other week. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > Jacques and Friends - > > So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a > possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same > time, 7am Pacific Time)? > > I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in > psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a > "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any > authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue > for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in > debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment > for me... LOL...). > > My very best to everyone, > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Kristopher >> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. >> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >> Jacques >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:08:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if > works for all? > > At this time we are meeting every other week. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Jacques and Friends - >> >> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >> >> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >> for me... LOL...). >> >> My very best to everyone, >> Kristopher >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kristopher >>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>> other. >>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >>> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>> Jacques >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:11:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:11:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday > beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < > euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >> works for all? >> >> At this time we are meeting every other week. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >>> Jacques and Friends - >>> >>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>> >>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>> for me... LOL...). >>> >>> My very best to everyone, >>> Kristopher >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Kristopher >>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>> other. >>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:25:42 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:25:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. > Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < > kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > >> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>> works for all? >>> >>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> >>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>> >>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>> >>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>> for me... LOL...). >>>> >>>> My very best to everyone, >>>> Kristopher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>> other. >>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >> >> 1.206.451.7020 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Tue Sep 30 20:31:05 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:31:05 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates Message-ID: Dear Folks, I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and lagging. It will take me a moment also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are available. I would predict by next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact others before confirming. In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and the US, would around 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I cannot work on Fridays Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). Until then, Scully Robert From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:48:00 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:48:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thank you Kristopher. Sorry for my typo. Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:25?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. > > Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the > US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs > ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you > meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current > 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). > > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. >> Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < >> kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: >> >>> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >>> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>>> works for all? >>>> >>>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>>> >>>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>>> >>>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and >>>>> in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>>> for me... LOL...). >>>>> >>>>> My very best to everyone, >>>>> Kristopher >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is >>>>>> not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >>> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >>> >>> 1.206.451.7020 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:51:28 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui this time works for me. Thank you Scully Robert. Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm evenings weekdays? Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and > lagging. It will take me a moment > also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are > available. I would predict by > next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom > meeting. Wednesday nights > so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact > others before confirming. > > In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and > the US, would around > 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I > cannot work on Fridays > Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). > > Until then, > > Scully Robert > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 22:36:07 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? To visualize this: 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Oui this time works for me. > Thank you Scully Robert. > Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? > > Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm > evenings weekdays? > > Aviva > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Folks, >> >> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and >> lagging. It will take me a moment >> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >> available. I would predict by >> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >> others before confirming. >> >> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >> and the US, would around >> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >> cannot work on Fridays >> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >> >> Until then, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 23:02:11 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:02:11 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh yikes On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 3:36?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? > > To visualize this: > > 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris > > 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris > > 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris > > 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> Oui this time works for me. >> Thank you Scully Robert. >> Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? >> >> Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm >> evenings weekdays? >> >> Aviva >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Folks, >>> >>> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe >>> and lagging. It will take me a moment >>> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >>> available. I would predict by >>> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >>> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >>> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >>> others before confirming. >>> >>> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >>> and the US, would around >>> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >>> cannot work on Fridays >>> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >>> >>> Until then, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 10:57:54 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Two new features... Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you can see there are 2 new features 1-- https://www.the-lacanalyst.org/ it opens now only the page with the pdf previously mentioned We have to wait a couple of hours for propagation. Any new post or document can be added by Quinn 2-- A new mailing list is available just send or answer to mails to the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org mail address Archives are private, they're available just for us. So far I chose the signifier "The Lacanalyst" as it's a way figure the dimension of instanciation of a non-analyst, it can be changed or other signifiers can be added. I support this political position that seems to foster Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 14:55:17 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:55:17 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether Message-ID: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Dear colleagues Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:15:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether In-Reply-To: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> References: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I can typically work around other people's schedules. The more notice the better. On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? > > My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being > Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) > > I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Tue Sep 9 21:16:07 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling Message-ID: Jacques, Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. john From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:25:14 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Meeting tomorrow for those who can make it Message-ID: Bonjour, Quinn and I will be meeting tomorrow (Wed) at 6 am PDT. I think the link has been sent out to those who may be able to join. We are in the process of finding a time everyone can make it via Zoom. I can be flexible to meet typically with advance notice. You can see below how I use the term Lacanalysis in my work as I am sending this from my business email. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 05:32:42 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 22:32:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. For me some advance notice works best. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > Jacques, > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > john > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:10:59 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] this is a test Message-ID: <4a0ba940-cc0f-41e9-a241-080125e0dcd7@lutecium.org> discard my friends... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:43:48 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:43:48 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 2 Message-ID: You'll receive probably a series of test, they are used to repair some glitches, just don't care -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:52:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487153.lacatest Message-ID: <1757487153.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 07:00:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:00:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487656.lacatest2 Message-ID: <1757487656.lacatest2@lutecium.org> hello again From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 07:13:55 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:13:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am planning on asking Quinn about his thoughts about how we might transmit the jouissance of the position of the analyst when we meet tomorrow. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about this. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:32?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. > For me some advance notice works best. > > Aviva Euripides > LMFT, Lacanalysis > 415-301-5219 > avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > > > Jacques, > > > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > > > john > > -- > > The-lacanalyst mailing list > > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:41:36 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:41:36 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:01:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:01:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] mbox selfcopy test 1757494902.lacatest-mbox Message-ID: <1757494902.lacatest-mbox@lutecium.org> hello, checking mbox delivery From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:45:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:45:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:45:28 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:45:28 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] maildir spam + selfcopy test 1757497528.lacatest Message-ID: <1757497528.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 10:16:44 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:16:44 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy to mbox 1757499404.selfcopy-list Message-ID: <1757499404.selfcopy-list@lutecium.org> checking selfcopy to mbox From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:39:27 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:39:27 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757504367.selfcopy Message-ID: <1757504367.selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello me again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:50:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:50:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757505033.selfcopy2 Message-ID: <1757505033.selfcopy2@lutecium.org> hello me again (dup flag fixed) From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 14 07:54:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 07:54:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session Message-ID: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Dear friends and colleagues One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? (John is it acceptable for you?) Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quinnfoerch at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 12:11:43 2025 From: quinnfoerch at gmail.com (Quinn Foerch) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:11:43 -0400 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This works for me?I will see you there! Until then, Quinn quinnfoerch.com > On Sep 14, 2025, at 3:56?AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > ? > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 14 15:45:41 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:45:41 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <7634E681-AFF6-4D8C-818C-C2E934D3494D@lmi.net> Jacques, Glad to hear you didn?t get arrested. As this is the time that works for you, I will manage. john > On Sep 14, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 17:54:12 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 10:54:12 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September > 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Mon Sep 15 16:19:04 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <8C55E5C2-7563-407E-BAC6-86B9FFC296E0@lmi.net> 6am. Yes, I know, ungodly. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2025, at 10:54 AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: >> Dear friends and colleagues >> >> One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC >> and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? >> >> (John is it acceptable for you?) >> >> Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 >> >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: QKsj5G >> One tap mobile >> +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US >> +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) >> >> Dial by your location >> +1 309 205 3325 US >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >> +1 360 209 5623 US >> +1 386 347 5053 US >> +1 507 473 4847 US >> +1 564 217 2000 US >> +1 646 931 3860 US >> +1 669 444 9171 US >> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) >> +1 689 278 1000 US >> +1 719 359 4580 US >> +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) >> +1 253 205 0468 US >> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) >> +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) >> +1 305 224 1968 US >> +33 1 7037 9729 France >> +33 1 7095 0103 France >> +33 1 7095 0350 France >> +33 1 8699 5831 France >> +33 1 7037 2246 France >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: 382952 >> Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI >> >> If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 17 16:01:53 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I confirm this date for a Zoom session September 18 For PDT it will be from 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM For the east coast 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM For Paris time 16:00 to 17:30 Jacques On 9/14/25 7:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday > September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 15:18:49 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:18:49 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A new member Message-ID: <4fe454a4-2518-4ebe-9f55-b74e09acaf95@lutecium.org> Dear Friends A very good friend of mine, being interested by the concept of Lacanalysis, is now registered on our mailing list He is French and US citizen. His name is Beno?t Ponsot. He practices psychoanalysis in Paris. Welcome to you and bienvenue ? toi mon ami! Jacques PS Following our last discussion, the archives are now turned public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 16:17:18 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:17:18 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Next Zoom session Message-ID: <5b028521-fe31-4826-80de-79c87dd4899d@lutecium.org> Dear friends A next Zoom session is programmed for? Thursday October 2 at 16:00 Paris time that is 7 AM PDT and 10 AM east coast >/Join Zoom Meeting />/https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 />//>/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: QKsj5G />/One tap mobile />/+13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US />/+13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) />//>/Dial by your location />/+1 309 205 3325 US />/+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) />/+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) />/+1 360 209 5623 US />/+1 386 347 5053 US />/+1 507 473 4847 US />/+1 564 217 2000 US />/+1 646 931 3860 US />/+1 669 444 9171 US />/+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) />/+1 689 278 1000 US />/+1 719 359 4580 US />/+1 929 205 6099 US (New York) />/+1 253 205 0468 US />/+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) />/+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) />/+1 305 224 1968 US />/+33 1 7037 9729 France />/+33 1 7095 0103 France />/+33 1 7095 0350 France />/+33 1 8699 5831 France />/+33 1 7037 2246 France />/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: 382952 />/Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI Jacques / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:30:10 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:30:10 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://academyanalyticarts.org/ragland-transferring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:43:33 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://clacs.ku.edu/faculty-research-travel-grants-prove-good-investment-garibottos-psychoanalysis-project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:46:03 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:46:03 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000592009_A42869610/preview-9781000592009_A42869610.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 08:41:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:41:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA Message-ID: Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 18:44:13 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:44:13 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:49:19 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 , 5 ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 , 4 , 9 ] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 21:38:06 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:38:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] ANALYSIS IN THE US Message-ID: <3C1198FF-6E94-4CC5-B66B-B14DE4574F0B@netwood.net> 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 From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 28 22:15:38 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] > The 2025 regulatory transfer > New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. > Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. > In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. > The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] > [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 23:03:42 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 23:03:42 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: >Kristopher, > >This has been my understanding for as well. > >john > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 23:30:02 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:30:02 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: <280146FC-88F7-46FB-A814-09B9803D3223@netwood.net> 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>> > On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. > Robert tell us my friend! > Jacques > > > On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:54:49 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this > update while recommending caution due to the following existing > information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this > matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current > developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." > -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed > psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state > licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent > legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP > to better protect the public. [1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > , > 4 ] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > > - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" > under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a > psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed > psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 > , > 5 > > ] > > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > > - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" > license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain > graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited > basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third > of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be > engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 > , > 6 , 7 > , > 8 > > ] > > The 2025 regulatory transfer > > - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research > Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California > to the California Board of Psychology. > - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the > addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move > is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of > a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better > public protection. [3 > , > 4 , 9 > ] > > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal > challenges from psychoanalysts. > > - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of > Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal > court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and > Fourteenth Amendments. > - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health > professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health > and safety. [6 > , 10 > , 11 > , 12 > > ] > > [1] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] > https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] > https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >> USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:57:18 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:57:18 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? > > I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. > > But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and > license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document > like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. > > I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as > here people can easily find us. > > Is this illegal or unethical in some way? > It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. > > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Kristopher, >> >> This has been my understanding for as well. >> >> john >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this >> update while recommending caution due to the following existing >> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this >> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current >> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." >> -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed >> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state >> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent >> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP >> to better protect the public. [1 >> , >> 2 >> , >> 3 >> , >> 4 ] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> >> - California's Business and Professions Code includes >> "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as >> a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed >> psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 >> , >> 5 >> >> ] >> >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> >> - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" >> license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain >> graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited >> basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third >> of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be >> engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 >> , >> 6 , 7 >> , >> 8 >> >> ] >> >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> >> - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research >> Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California >> to the California Board of Psychology. >> - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines >> the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This >> move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the >> oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, >> ensuring better public protection. [3 >> , >> 4 , 9 >> ] >> >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal >> challenges from psychoanalysts. >> >> - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of >> Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal >> court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and >> Fourteenth Amendments. >> - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health >> professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health >> and safety. [6 >> , 10 >> , 11 >> , 12 >> >> ] >> >> [1] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] >> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] >> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >>> USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> The-lacanalyst mailing list >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 06:33:06 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:33:06 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: mail problem -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: test 123 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques Siboni 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>> From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 10:00:01 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:00:01 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques B. Siboni 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 > 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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>> >>>> >>>> From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:54:42 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:54:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Scully-Robert, We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:56:55 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:56:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: 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 > To: Jacques B. Siboni > > > > 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 > > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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 > >>> 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>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Mon Sep 29 16:43:00 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Aviva, (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it appropriate, to invite a few others besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks to come to address this question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. Best regards, Scully Robert > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Dear Scully-Robert, > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > 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 From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 16:48:08 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:48:08 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Scully Robert, Oui to all. I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 20:44:28 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the wild west). I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an LMFT(or licensed whatever...). Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, though. Cheers Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 20:57:56 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:57:56 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Kristopher, The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in insurance based practice and one in private practice. I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will return for the next meeting. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering > psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health > services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been > involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues > these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - > personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place > in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about > it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to > contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's > individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good > lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the > wild west). > > I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American > Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical > approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session > is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a > self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile > the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the > freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage > in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes > sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, > you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be > curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an > LMFT(or licensed whatever...). > > Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and > since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be > moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, > though. > > Cheers > Kristopher > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Bonjour Aviva, >> >> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >> >> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >> appropriate, to invite a few others >> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US >> is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks >> to come to address this >> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting >> times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> >> >> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Scully-Robert, >> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >> > Aviva >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> > mail problem >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: test 123 >> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >> > From: Tate >> > To: Jacques Siboni >> > >> > >> > >> > 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>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 21:22:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:22:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Aviva. I don't do insurance at all (private pay only), so this allows me a lot more freedom to work it all out with my patients directly as they would be the only ones filing any complaints that would trigger any investigation (assuming all my services are otherwise equally available to everyone). I also have a job that pays for my healthcare (it would be a few thousand dollars for the two of us otherwise), so I can afford to "do what I want" in my own clinic. It is at once a compromise and a privilege, and gives me what I want... Jacques - jokingly.... if you could only move the seminar from Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (at the same time), my life would be in a full revolution on "my Mobious strip" from the last time I had the pleasure to take a lecture from you to right now :-) Until then... my return is imprecise... LOL... Best, Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:58?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Thank you Kristopher, > > The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do > since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. > > My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in > insurance based practice and one in private practice. > > I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or > afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice > when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will > return for the next meeting. > > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and >> start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to >> provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a >> conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind >> everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national >> licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me >> since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And >> - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No >> interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and >> every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I >> recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the >> EU, this is the wild west). >> >> I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American >> Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical >> approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session >> is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a >> self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile >> the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the >> freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage >> in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes >> sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, >> you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be >> curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an >> LMFT(or licensed whatever...). >> >> Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and >> since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be >> moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, >> though. >> >> Cheers >> Kristopher >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Bonjour Aviva, >>> >>> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >>> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >>> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >>> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >>> appropriate, to invite a few others >>> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the >>> US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the >>> weeks to come to address this >>> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible >>> meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Scully-Robert, >>> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >>> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >>> > Aviva >>> > >>> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> > mail problem >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> > Subject: test 123 >>> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >>> > From: Tate >>> > To: Jacques Siboni >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 06:51:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:51:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side Message-ID: Dear Kristopher About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. Jacques From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 13:41:03 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:41:03 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem in your country (and Germany and other countries) all the best Jacques On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > Bonjour Scully Robert, > Oui to all. > I will make myself available to a time that works for you.? I am > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > wrote: > > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I? already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > it appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? test 123 > > Date:? ?Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From:? ?Tate > > To:? ? ?Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > > From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 16:56:06 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:56:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jacques, Is there a way to consider the sender of the email also a recipient of the same email (instead of being sent an automated confirmation response that the sent email was received by the listserve?). In other words, instead of being sent a received receipt for this email, I would simply see it as an incoming listserv email. This could avoid the questions as to whether or not an email went through and also would eliminate having to delete the confirmation mail since no actual content is there (so extra step/task). Just some ideas to consider as you search for the solution, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:50?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:08:59 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:08:59 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui the more the merrier To clarify I am open to all time possibilities to include everyone I just mean that if someone unfamiliar to us wants to join I myself will defer to Jacques. You can see below how I point to the specifics of my work at this time. I do not work as a psychotherapist and have no interest in psychology-I do operate under my license for financial reasons. I am hopeful that the specification of Lutecium will gain some interest towards our website, work and plus de jouir in general. Next, I will make some Lutecium tee shirts and merch (merchandise), just kidding! *Aviva Euripides* LMFT, Topologos Lutecium Domain 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:44?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 17:37:21 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques and Friends - So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same time, 7am Pacific Time)? I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment for me... LOL...). My very best to everyone, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Kristopher > About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. > For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a > service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. > Jacques > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Notes re Legality of Psychoanalytic Praxis.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:50:14 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:50:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if works for all? At this time we are meeting every other week. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > Jacques and Friends - > > So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a > possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same > time, 7am Pacific Time)? > > I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in > psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a > "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any > authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue > for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in > debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment > for me... LOL...). > > My very best to everyone, > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Kristopher >> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. >> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >> Jacques >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:08:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if > works for all? > > At this time we are meeting every other week. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Jacques and Friends - >> >> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >> >> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >> for me... LOL...). >> >> My very best to everyone, >> Kristopher >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kristopher >>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>> other. >>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >>> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>> Jacques >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:11:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:11:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday > beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < > euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >> works for all? >> >> At this time we are meeting every other week. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >>> Jacques and Friends - >>> >>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>> >>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>> for me... LOL...). >>> >>> My very best to everyone, >>> Kristopher >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Kristopher >>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>> other. >>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:25:42 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:25:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. > Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < > kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > >> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>> works for all? >>> >>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> >>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>> >>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>> >>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>> for me... LOL...). >>>> >>>> My very best to everyone, >>>> Kristopher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>> other. >>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >> >> 1.206.451.7020 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Tue Sep 30 20:31:05 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:31:05 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates Message-ID: Dear Folks, I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and lagging. It will take me a moment also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are available. I would predict by next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact others before confirming. In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and the US, would around 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I cannot work on Fridays Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). Until then, Scully Robert From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:48:00 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:48:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thank you Kristopher. Sorry for my typo. Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:25?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. > > Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the > US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs > ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you > meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current > 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). > > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. >> Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < >> kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: >> >>> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >>> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>>> works for all? >>>> >>>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>>> >>>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>>> >>>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and >>>>> in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>>> for me... LOL...). >>>>> >>>>> My very best to everyone, >>>>> Kristopher >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is >>>>>> not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >>> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >>> >>> 1.206.451.7020 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:51:28 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui this time works for me. Thank you Scully Robert. Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm evenings weekdays? Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and > lagging. It will take me a moment > also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are > available. I would predict by > next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom > meeting. Wednesday nights > so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact > others before confirming. > > In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and > the US, would around > 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I > cannot work on Fridays > Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). > > Until then, > > Scully Robert > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 22:36:07 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? To visualize this: 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Oui this time works for me. > Thank you Scully Robert. > Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? > > Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm > evenings weekdays? > > Aviva > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Folks, >> >> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and >> lagging. It will take me a moment >> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >> available. I would predict by >> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >> others before confirming. >> >> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >> and the US, would around >> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >> cannot work on Fridays >> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >> >> Until then, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 23:02:11 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:02:11 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh yikes On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 3:36?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? > > To visualize this: > > 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris > > 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris > > 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris > > 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> Oui this time works for me. >> Thank you Scully Robert. >> Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? >> >> Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm >> evenings weekdays? >> >> Aviva >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Folks, >>> >>> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe >>> and lagging. It will take me a moment >>> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >>> available. I would predict by >>> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >>> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >>> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >>> others before confirming. >>> >>> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >>> and the US, would around >>> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >>> cannot work on Fridays >>> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >>> >>> Until then, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 10:57:54 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Two new features... Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you can see there are 2 new features 1-- https://www.the-lacanalyst.org/ it opens now only the page with the pdf previously mentioned We have to wait a couple of hours for propagation. Any new post or document can be added by Quinn 2-- A new mailing list is available just send or answer to mails to the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org mail address Archives are private, they're available just for us. So far I chose the signifier "The Lacanalyst" as it's a way figure the dimension of instanciation of a non-analyst, it can be changed or other signifiers can be added. I support this political position that seems to foster Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 14:55:17 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:55:17 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether Message-ID: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Dear colleagues Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:15:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether In-Reply-To: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> References: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I can typically work around other people's schedules. The more notice the better. On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? > > My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being > Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) > > I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Tue Sep 9 21:16:07 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling Message-ID: Jacques, Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. john From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:25:14 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Meeting tomorrow for those who can make it Message-ID: Bonjour, Quinn and I will be meeting tomorrow (Wed) at 6 am PDT. I think the link has been sent out to those who may be able to join. We are in the process of finding a time everyone can make it via Zoom. I can be flexible to meet typically with advance notice. You can see below how I use the term Lacanalysis in my work as I am sending this from my business email. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 05:32:42 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 22:32:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. For me some advance notice works best. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > Jacques, > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > john > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:10:59 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] this is a test Message-ID: <4a0ba940-cc0f-41e9-a241-080125e0dcd7@lutecium.org> discard my friends... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:43:48 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:43:48 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 2 Message-ID: You'll receive probably a series of test, they are used to repair some glitches, just don't care -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:52:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487153.lacatest Message-ID: <1757487153.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 07:00:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:00:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487656.lacatest2 Message-ID: <1757487656.lacatest2@lutecium.org> hello again From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 07:13:55 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:13:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am planning on asking Quinn about his thoughts about how we might transmit the jouissance of the position of the analyst when we meet tomorrow. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about this. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:32?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. > For me some advance notice works best. > > Aviva Euripides > LMFT, Lacanalysis > 415-301-5219 > avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > > > Jacques, > > > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > > > john > > -- > > The-lacanalyst mailing list > > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:41:36 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:41:36 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:01:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:01:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] mbox selfcopy test 1757494902.lacatest-mbox Message-ID: <1757494902.lacatest-mbox@lutecium.org> hello, checking mbox delivery From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:45:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:45:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:45:28 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:45:28 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] maildir spam + selfcopy test 1757497528.lacatest Message-ID: <1757497528.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 10:16:44 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:16:44 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy to mbox 1757499404.selfcopy-list Message-ID: <1757499404.selfcopy-list@lutecium.org> checking selfcopy to mbox From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:39:27 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:39:27 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757504367.selfcopy Message-ID: <1757504367.selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello me again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:50:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:50:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757505033.selfcopy2 Message-ID: <1757505033.selfcopy2@lutecium.org> hello me again (dup flag fixed) From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 14 07:54:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 07:54:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session Message-ID: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Dear friends and colleagues One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? (John is it acceptable for you?) Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quinnfoerch at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 12:11:43 2025 From: quinnfoerch at gmail.com (Quinn Foerch) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:11:43 -0400 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This works for me?I will see you there! Until then, Quinn quinnfoerch.com > On Sep 14, 2025, at 3:56?AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > ? > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 14 15:45:41 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:45:41 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <7634E681-AFF6-4D8C-818C-C2E934D3494D@lmi.net> Jacques, Glad to hear you didn?t get arrested. As this is the time that works for you, I will manage. john > On Sep 14, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 17:54:12 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 10:54:12 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September > 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Mon Sep 15 16:19:04 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <8C55E5C2-7563-407E-BAC6-86B9FFC296E0@lmi.net> 6am. Yes, I know, ungodly. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2025, at 10:54 AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: >> Dear friends and colleagues >> >> One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC >> and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? >> >> (John is it acceptable for you?) >> >> Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 >> >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: QKsj5G >> One tap mobile >> +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US >> +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) >> >> Dial by your location >> +1 309 205 3325 US >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >> +1 360 209 5623 US >> +1 386 347 5053 US >> +1 507 473 4847 US >> +1 564 217 2000 US >> +1 646 931 3860 US >> +1 669 444 9171 US >> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) >> +1 689 278 1000 US >> +1 719 359 4580 US >> +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) >> +1 253 205 0468 US >> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) >> +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) >> +1 305 224 1968 US >> +33 1 7037 9729 France >> +33 1 7095 0103 France >> +33 1 7095 0350 France >> +33 1 8699 5831 France >> +33 1 7037 2246 France >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: 382952 >> Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI >> >> If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 17 16:01:53 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I confirm this date for a Zoom session September 18 For PDT it will be from 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM For the east coast 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM For Paris time 16:00 to 17:30 Jacques On 9/14/25 7:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday > September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 15:18:49 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:18:49 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A new member Message-ID: <4fe454a4-2518-4ebe-9f55-b74e09acaf95@lutecium.org> Dear Friends A very good friend of mine, being interested by the concept of Lacanalysis, is now registered on our mailing list He is French and US citizen. His name is Beno?t Ponsot. He practices psychoanalysis in Paris. Welcome to you and bienvenue ? toi mon ami! Jacques PS Following our last discussion, the archives are now turned public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 16:17:18 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:17:18 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Next Zoom session Message-ID: <5b028521-fe31-4826-80de-79c87dd4899d@lutecium.org> Dear friends A next Zoom session is programmed for? Thursday October 2 at 16:00 Paris time that is 7 AM PDT and 10 AM east coast >/Join Zoom Meeting />/https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 />//>/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: QKsj5G />/One tap mobile />/+13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US />/+13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) />//>/Dial by your location />/+1 309 205 3325 US />/+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) />/+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) />/+1 360 209 5623 US />/+1 386 347 5053 US />/+1 507 473 4847 US />/+1 564 217 2000 US />/+1 646 931 3860 US />/+1 669 444 9171 US />/+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) />/+1 689 278 1000 US />/+1 719 359 4580 US />/+1 929 205 6099 US (New York) />/+1 253 205 0468 US />/+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) />/+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) />/+1 305 224 1968 US />/+33 1 7037 9729 France />/+33 1 7095 0103 France />/+33 1 7095 0350 France />/+33 1 8699 5831 France />/+33 1 7037 2246 France />/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: 382952 />/Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI Jacques / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:30:10 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:30:10 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://academyanalyticarts.org/ragland-transferring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:43:33 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://clacs.ku.edu/faculty-research-travel-grants-prove-good-investment-garibottos-psychoanalysis-project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:46:03 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:46:03 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000592009_A42869610/preview-9781000592009_A42869610.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 08:41:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:41:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA Message-ID: Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 18:44:13 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:44:13 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:49:19 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 , 5 ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 , 4 , 9 ] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 21:38:06 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:38:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] ANALYSIS IN THE US Message-ID: <3C1198FF-6E94-4CC5-B66B-B14DE4574F0B@netwood.net> 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 From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 28 22:15:38 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] > The 2025 regulatory transfer > New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. > Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. > In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. > The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] > [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 23:03:42 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 23:03:42 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: >Kristopher, > >This has been my understanding for as well. > >john > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 23:30:02 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:30:02 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: <280146FC-88F7-46FB-A814-09B9803D3223@netwood.net> 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>> > On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. > Robert tell us my friend! > Jacques > > > On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:54:49 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this > update while recommending caution due to the following existing > information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this > matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current > developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." > -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed > psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state > licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent > legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP > to better protect the public. [1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > , > 4 ] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > > - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" > under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a > psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed > psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 > , > 5 > > ] > > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > > - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" > license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain > graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited > basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third > of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be > engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 > , > 6 , 7 > , > 8 > > ] > > The 2025 regulatory transfer > > - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research > Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California > to the California Board of Psychology. > - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the > addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move > is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of > a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better > public protection. [3 > , > 4 , 9 > ] > > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal > challenges from psychoanalysts. > > - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of > Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal > court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and > Fourteenth Amendments. > - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health > professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health > and safety. [6 > , 10 > , 11 > , 12 > > ] > > [1] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] > https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] > https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >> USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:57:18 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:57:18 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? > > I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. > > But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and > license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document > like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. > > I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as > here people can easily find us. > > Is this illegal or unethical in some way? > It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. > > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Kristopher, >> >> This has been my understanding for as well. >> >> john >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this >> update while recommending caution due to the following existing >> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this >> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current >> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." >> -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed >> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state >> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent >> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP >> to better protect the public. [1 >> , >> 2 >> , >> 3 >> , >> 4 ] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> >> - California's Business and Professions Code includes >> "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as >> a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed >> psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 >> , >> 5 >> >> ] >> >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> >> - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" >> license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain >> graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited >> basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third >> of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be >> engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 >> , >> 6 , 7 >> , >> 8 >> >> ] >> >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> >> - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research >> Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California >> to the California Board of Psychology. >> - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines >> the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This >> move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the >> oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, >> ensuring better public protection. [3 >> , >> 4 , 9 >> ] >> >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal >> challenges from psychoanalysts. >> >> - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of >> Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal >> court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and >> Fourteenth Amendments. >> - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health >> professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health >> and safety. [6 >> , 10 >> , 11 >> , 12 >> >> ] >> >> [1] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] >> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] >> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >>> USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> The-lacanalyst mailing list >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 06:33:06 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:33:06 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: mail problem -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: test 123 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques Siboni 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>> From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 10:00:01 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:00:01 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques B. Siboni 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 > 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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>> >>>> >>>> From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:54:42 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:54:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Scully-Robert, We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:56:55 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:56:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: 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 > To: Jacques B. Siboni > > > > 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 > > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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 > >>> 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>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Mon Sep 29 16:43:00 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Aviva, (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it appropriate, to invite a few others besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks to come to address this question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. Best regards, Scully Robert > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Dear Scully-Robert, > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > 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 From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 16:48:08 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:48:08 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Scully Robert, Oui to all. I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 20:44:28 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the wild west). I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an LMFT(or licensed whatever...). Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, though. Cheers Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 20:57:56 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:57:56 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Kristopher, The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in insurance based practice and one in private practice. I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will return for the next meeting. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering > psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health > services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been > involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues > these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - > personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place > in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about > it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to > contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's > individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good > lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the > wild west). > > I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American > Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical > approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session > is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a > self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile > the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the > freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage > in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes > sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, > you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be > curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an > LMFT(or licensed whatever...). > > Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and > since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be > moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, > though. > > Cheers > Kristopher > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Bonjour Aviva, >> >> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >> >> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >> appropriate, to invite a few others >> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US >> is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks >> to come to address this >> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting >> times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> >> >> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Scully-Robert, >> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >> > Aviva >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> > mail problem >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: test 123 >> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >> > From: Tate >> > To: Jacques Siboni >> > >> > >> > >> > 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>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 21:22:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:22:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Aviva. I don't do insurance at all (private pay only), so this allows me a lot more freedom to work it all out with my patients directly as they would be the only ones filing any complaints that would trigger any investigation (assuming all my services are otherwise equally available to everyone). I also have a job that pays for my healthcare (it would be a few thousand dollars for the two of us otherwise), so I can afford to "do what I want" in my own clinic. It is at once a compromise and a privilege, and gives me what I want... Jacques - jokingly.... if you could only move the seminar from Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (at the same time), my life would be in a full revolution on "my Mobious strip" from the last time I had the pleasure to take a lecture from you to right now :-) Until then... my return is imprecise... LOL... Best, Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:58?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Thank you Kristopher, > > The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do > since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. > > My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in > insurance based practice and one in private practice. > > I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or > afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice > when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will > return for the next meeting. > > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and >> start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to >> provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a >> conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind >> everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national >> licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me >> since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And >> - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No >> interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and >> every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I >> recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the >> EU, this is the wild west). >> >> I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American >> Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical >> approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session >> is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a >> self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile >> the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the >> freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage >> in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes >> sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, >> you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be >> curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an >> LMFT(or licensed whatever...). >> >> Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and >> since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be >> moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, >> though. >> >> Cheers >> Kristopher >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Bonjour Aviva, >>> >>> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >>> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >>> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >>> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >>> appropriate, to invite a few others >>> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the >>> US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the >>> weeks to come to address this >>> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible >>> meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Scully-Robert, >>> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >>> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >>> > Aviva >>> > >>> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> > mail problem >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> > Subject: test 123 >>> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >>> > From: Tate >>> > To: Jacques Siboni >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 06:51:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:51:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side Message-ID: Dear Kristopher About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. Jacques From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 13:41:03 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:41:03 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem in your country (and Germany and other countries) all the best Jacques On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > Bonjour Scully Robert, > Oui to all. > I will make myself available to a time that works for you.? I am > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > wrote: > > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I? already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > it appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? test 123 > > Date:? ?Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From:? ?Tate > > To:? ? ?Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > > From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 16:56:06 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:56:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jacques, Is there a way to consider the sender of the email also a recipient of the same email (instead of being sent an automated confirmation response that the sent email was received by the listserve?). In other words, instead of being sent a received receipt for this email, I would simply see it as an incoming listserv email. This could avoid the questions as to whether or not an email went through and also would eliminate having to delete the confirmation mail since no actual content is there (so extra step/task). Just some ideas to consider as you search for the solution, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:50?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:08:59 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:08:59 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui the more the merrier To clarify I am open to all time possibilities to include everyone I just mean that if someone unfamiliar to us wants to join I myself will defer to Jacques. You can see below how I point to the specifics of my work at this time. I do not work as a psychotherapist and have no interest in psychology-I do operate under my license for financial reasons. I am hopeful that the specification of Lutecium will gain some interest towards our website, work and plus de jouir in general. Next, I will make some Lutecium tee shirts and merch (merchandise), just kidding! *Aviva Euripides* LMFT, Topologos Lutecium Domain 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:44?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 17:37:21 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques and Friends - So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same time, 7am Pacific Time)? I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment for me... LOL...). My very best to everyone, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Kristopher > About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. > For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a > service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. > Jacques > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Notes re Legality of Psychoanalytic Praxis.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:50:14 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:50:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if works for all? At this time we are meeting every other week. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > Jacques and Friends - > > So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a > possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same > time, 7am Pacific Time)? > > I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in > psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a > "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any > authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue > for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in > debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment > for me... LOL...). > > My very best to everyone, > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Kristopher >> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. >> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >> Jacques >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:08:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if > works for all? > > At this time we are meeting every other week. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Jacques and Friends - >> >> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >> >> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >> for me... LOL...). >> >> My very best to everyone, >> Kristopher >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kristopher >>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>> other. >>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >>> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>> Jacques >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:11:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:11:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday > beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < > euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >> works for all? >> >> At this time we are meeting every other week. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >>> Jacques and Friends - >>> >>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>> >>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>> for me... LOL...). >>> >>> My very best to everyone, >>> Kristopher >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Kristopher >>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>> other. >>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:25:42 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:25:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. > Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < > kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > >> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>> works for all? >>> >>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> >>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>> >>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>> >>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>> for me... LOL...). >>>> >>>> My very best to everyone, >>>> Kristopher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>> other. >>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >> >> 1.206.451.7020 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Tue Sep 30 20:31:05 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:31:05 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates Message-ID: Dear Folks, I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and lagging. It will take me a moment also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are available. I would predict by next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact others before confirming. In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and the US, would around 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I cannot work on Fridays Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). Until then, Scully Robert From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:48:00 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:48:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thank you Kristopher. Sorry for my typo. Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:25?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. > > Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the > US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs > ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you > meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current > 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). > > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. >> Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < >> kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: >> >>> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >>> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>>> works for all? >>>> >>>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>>> >>>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>>> >>>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and >>>>> in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>>> for me... LOL...). >>>>> >>>>> My very best to everyone, >>>>> Kristopher >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is >>>>>> not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >>> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >>> >>> 1.206.451.7020 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:51:28 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui this time works for me. Thank you Scully Robert. Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm evenings weekdays? Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and > lagging. It will take me a moment > also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are > available. I would predict by > next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom > meeting. Wednesday nights > so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact > others before confirming. > > In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and > the US, would around > 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I > cannot work on Fridays > Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). > > Until then, > > Scully Robert > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 22:36:07 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? To visualize this: 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Oui this time works for me. > Thank you Scully Robert. > Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? > > Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm > evenings weekdays? > > Aviva > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Folks, >> >> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and >> lagging. It will take me a moment >> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >> available. I would predict by >> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >> others before confirming. >> >> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >> and the US, would around >> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >> cannot work on Fridays >> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >> >> Until then, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 23:02:11 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:02:11 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh yikes On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 3:36?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? > > To visualize this: > > 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris > > 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris > > 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris > > 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> Oui this time works for me. >> Thank you Scully Robert. >> Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? >> >> Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm >> evenings weekdays? >> >> Aviva >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Folks, >>> >>> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe >>> and lagging. It will take me a moment >>> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >>> available. I would predict by >>> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >>> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >>> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >>> others before confirming. >>> >>> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >>> and the US, would around >>> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >>> cannot work on Fridays >>> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >>> >>> Until then, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 10:57:54 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:57:54 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Two new features... Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you can see there are 2 new features 1-- https://www.the-lacanalyst.org/ it opens now only the page with the pdf previously mentioned We have to wait a couple of hours for propagation. Any new post or document can be added by Quinn 2-- A new mailing list is available just send or answer to mails to the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org mail address Archives are private, they're available just for us. So far I chose the signifier "The Lacanalyst" as it's a way figure the dimension of instanciation of a non-analyst, it can be changed or other signifiers can be added. I support this political position that seems to foster Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 9 14:55:17 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:55:17 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether Message-ID: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Dear colleagues Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:15:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 08:15:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Zoom altogether In-Reply-To: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> References: <0ab13480-9a2c-43b5-b515-9c51d3bc16f1@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I can typically work around other people's schedules. The more notice the better. On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Can we find a time altogether to meet on Zoom next week? > > My possibilities are on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (the more simple being > Friday between 1500 UTC and 1700 UTC) > > I can pass you the credentials for Zoom it will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Tue Sep 9 21:16:07 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling Message-ID: Jacques, Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. john From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:25:14 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Meeting tomorrow for those who can make it Message-ID: Bonjour, Quinn and I will be meeting tomorrow (Wed) at 6 am PDT. I think the link has been sent out to those who may be able to join. We are in the process of finding a time everyone can make it via Zoom. I can be flexible to meet typically with advance notice. You can see below how I use the term Lacanalysis in my work as I am sending this from my business email. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 05:32:42 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 22:32:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. For me some advance notice works best. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > Jacques, > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > john > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:10:59 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] this is a test Message-ID: <4a0ba940-cc0f-41e9-a241-080125e0dcd7@lutecium.org> discard my friends... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:43:48 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:43:48 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 2 Message-ID: You'll receive probably a series of test, they are used to repair some glitches, just don't care -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 06:52:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487153.lacatest Message-ID: <1757487153.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 07:00:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:00:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757487656.lacatest2 Message-ID: <1757487656.lacatest2@lutecium.org> hello again From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 07:13:55 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:13:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Scheduling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am planning on asking Quinn about his thoughts about how we might transmit the jouissance of the position of the analyst when we meet tomorrow. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about this. Aviva Euripides LMFT, Lacanalysis 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:32?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Jacques, I am with John on this one, pick a time and I will be there. > For me some advance notice works best. > > Aviva Euripides > LMFT, Lacanalysis > 415-301-5219 > avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:16?PM john G wrote: > > > > Jacques, > > > > Pick a day and time that works for you. I will be there, but I make no guarantees that my coffee will use its power for good nor how alert I may be. > > > > john > > -- > > The-lacanalyst mailing list > > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:41:36 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:41:36 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493613.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:01:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:01:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] mbox selfcopy test 1757494902.lacatest-mbox Message-ID: <1757494902.lacatest-mbox@lutecium.org> hello, checking mbox delivery From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 08:45:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:45:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy test 1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy Message-ID: <1757493951.lacatest-selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello again (selfcopy check) From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 09:45:28 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:45:28 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] maildir spam + selfcopy test 1757497528.lacatest Message-ID: <1757497528.lacatest@lutecium.org> hello again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 10:16:44 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 10:16:44 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy to mbox 1757499404.selfcopy-list Message-ID: <1757499404.selfcopy-list@lutecium.org> checking selfcopy to mbox From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:39:27 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:39:27 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757504367.selfcopy Message-ID: <1757504367.selfcopy@lutecium.org> hello me again From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 10 11:50:33 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (jacsib at lutecium.org) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:50:33 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] selfcopy+ack test 1757505033.selfcopy2 Message-ID: <1757505033.selfcopy2@lutecium.org> hello me again (dup flag fixed) From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 14 07:54:43 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 07:54:43 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session Message-ID: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Dear friends and colleagues One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? (John is it acceptable for you?) Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: QKsj5G One tap mobile +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 931 3860 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 Passcode: 382952 Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quinnfoerch at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 12:11:43 2025 From: quinnfoerch at gmail.com (Quinn Foerch) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:11:43 -0400 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This works for me?I will see you there! Until then, Quinn quinnfoerch.com > On Sep 14, 2025, at 3:56?AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > ? > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 14 15:45:41 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (john G) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 08:45:41 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <7634E681-AFF6-4D8C-818C-C2E934D3494D@lmi.net> Jacques, Glad to hear you didn?t get arrested. As this is the time that works for you, I will manage. john > On Sep 14, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 17:54:12 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 10:54:12 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September > 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaspo at lmi.net Mon Sep 15 16:19:04 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: <8C55E5C2-7563-407E-BAC6-86B9FFC296E0@lmi.net> 6am. Yes, I know, ungodly. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 14, 2025, at 10:54 AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > someone please tell me what time that is in PDT and I will be there. > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:55?AM Jacques B. Siboni wrote: >> Dear friends and colleagues >> >> One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday September 18 between 1400 UTC >> and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? >> >> (John is it acceptable for you?) >> >> Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: >> >> Join Zoom Meeting >> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 >> >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: QKsj5G >> One tap mobile >> +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US >> +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) >> >> Dial by your location >> +1 309 205 3325 US >> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >> +1 360 209 5623 US >> +1 386 347 5053 US >> +1 507 473 4847 US >> +1 564 217 2000 US >> +1 646 931 3860 US >> +1 669 444 9171 US >> +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) >> +1 689 278 1000 US >> +1 719 359 4580 US >> +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) >> +1 253 205 0468 US >> +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) >> +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) >> +1 305 224 1968 US >> +33 1 7037 9729 France >> +33 1 7095 0103 France >> +33 1 7095 0350 France >> +33 1 8699 5831 France >> +33 1 7037 2246 France >> Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 >> Passcode: 382952 >> Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI >> >> If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Wed Sep 17 16:01:53 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A Zoom session In-Reply-To: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> References: <06c9e5de-78ba-4437-a704-4a72b17ce900@lutecium.org> Message-ID: I confirm this date for a Zoom session September 18 For PDT it will be from 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM For the east coast 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM For Paris time 16:00 to 17:30 Jacques On 9/14/25 7:54 AM, Jacques B. Siboni wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues > > One suggestion for a Zoom session. What do you think of Thursday > September 18 between 1400 UTC > and 1530 UTC (please compute for your local times)? > > (John is it acceptable for you?) > > Anyway the Zoom credentials are and will be: > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 > > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: QKsj5G > One tap mobile > +13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US > +13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) > > Dial by your location > +1 309 205 3325 US > +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) > +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) > +1 360 209 5623 US > +1 386 347 5053 US > +1 507 473 4847 US > +1 564 217 2000 US > +1 646 931 3860 US > +1 669 444 9171 US > +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) > +1 689 278 1000 US > +1 719 359 4580 US > +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) > +1 253 205 0468 US > +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) > +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) > +1 305 224 1968 US > +33 1 7037 9729 France > +33 1 7095 0103 France > +33 1 7095 0350 France > +33 1 8699 5831 France > +33 1 7037 2246 France > Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 > Passcode: 382952 > Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI > > If it's good for us all, then let's do it otherwise we'll find another date > > Jacques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 15:18:49 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:18:49 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] A new member Message-ID: <4fe454a4-2518-4ebe-9f55-b74e09acaf95@lutecium.org> Dear Friends A very good friend of mine, being interested by the concept of Lacanalysis, is now registered on our mailing list He is French and US citizen. His name is Beno?t Ponsot. He practices psychoanalysis in Paris. Welcome to you and bienvenue ? toi mon ami! Jacques PS Following our last discussion, the archives are now turned public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Fri Sep 19 16:17:18 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:17:18 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Next Zoom session Message-ID: <5b028521-fe31-4826-80de-79c87dd4899d@lutecium.org> Dear friends A next Zoom session is programmed for? Thursday October 2 at 16:00 Paris time that is 7 AM PDT and 10 AM east coast >/Join Zoom Meeting />/https://us06web.zoom.us/j/4951270294?pwd=TUJNeVdJZm9scDFYakdWanVIZXVWZz09 />//>/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: QKsj5G />/One tap mobile />/+13092053325,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US />/+13126266799,,4951270294#,,,,*382952# US (Chicago) />//>/Dial by your location />/+1 309 205 3325 US />/+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) />/+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) />/+1 360 209 5623 US />/+1 386 347 5053 US />/+1 507 473 4847 US />/+1 564 217 2000 US />/+1 646 931 3860 US />/+1 669 444 9171 US />/+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) />/+1 689 278 1000 US />/+1 719 359 4580 US />/+1 929 205 6099 US (New York) />/+1 253 205 0468 US />/+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) />/+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) />/+1 305 224 1968 US />/+33 1 7037 9729 France />/+33 1 7095 0103 France />/+33 1 7095 0350 France />/+33 1 8699 5831 France />/+33 1 7037 2246 France />/Meeting ID: 495 127 0294 />/Passcode: 382952 />/Find your local number:https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc0gw3myxI Jacques / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:30:10 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:30:10 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://academyanalyticarts.org/ragland-transferring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:43:33 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://clacs.ku.edu/faculty-research-travel-grants-prove-good-investment-garibottos-psychoanalysis-project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 17:46:03 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 10:46:03 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] (no subject) Message-ID: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000592009_A42869610/preview-9781000592009_A42869610.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 08:41:51 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:41:51 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA Message-ID: Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Sun Sep 28 18:44:13 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:44:13 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:49:19 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 , 5 ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 , 4 , 9 ] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau > I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague > living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great > legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. > I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the > statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can > decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put > a placard saying so in front of their office. > > I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be > kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood > by psychoanalysts in the US. > > Tell us > > Cheers > > Jacques > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 21:38:06 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 14:38:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] ANALYSIS IN THE US Message-ID: <3C1198FF-6E94-4CC5-B66B-B14DE4574F0B@netwood.net> 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 From gaspo at lmi.net Sun Sep 28 22:15:38 2025 From: gaspo at lmi.net (John Gasperoni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] > The 2025 regulatory transfer > New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. > Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. > In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. > The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] > [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Sun Sep 28 23:03:42 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 23:03:42 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: >Kristopher, > >This has been my understanding for as well. > >john > >Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Sun Sep 28 23:30:02 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 16:30:02 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: <280146FC-88F7-46FB-A814-09B9803D3223@netwood.net> 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>> > On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > > So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. > Robert tell us my friend! > Jacques > > > On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. >> ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. >> ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. >> ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] >> [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:54:49 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:54:49 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Kristopher, > > This has been my understanding for as well. > > john > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this > update while recommending caution due to the following existing > information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this > matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current > developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." > -Kristopher > > ********************** > In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed > psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state > licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent > legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP > to better protect the public. [1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > , > 4 ] > > Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology > > - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" > under its definition of the "practice of psychology". > - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a > psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed > psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 > , > 5 > > ] > > The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception > > - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" > license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain > graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited > basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". > - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third > of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be > engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 > , > 6 , 7 > , > 8 > > ] > > The 2025 regulatory transfer > > - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research > Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California > to the California Board of Psychology. > - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the > addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move > is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of > a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better > public protection. [3 > , > 4 , 9 > ] > > Legal challenges to the licensing scheme > The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal > challenges from psychoanalysts. > > - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of > Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal > court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and > Fourteenth Amendments. > - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health > professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health > and safety. [6 > , 10 > , 11 > , 12 > > ] > > [1] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [2] > https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ > [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ > > [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml > [5] > https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) > [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [7] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > [8] > https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ > > [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf > [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm > [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm > [12] > https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf > > ********************************************* > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >> USA. >> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >> a placard saying so in front of their office. >> >> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >> by psychoanalysts in the US. >> >> Tell us >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 01:57:18 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:57:18 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <79BE08C7-10A6-45ED-991C-A8DC6AA652EC@lmi.net> Message-ID: This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? > > I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. > > But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and > license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document > like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. > > I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as > here people can easily find us. > > Is this illegal or unethical in some way? > It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. > > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Kristopher, >> >> This has been my understanding for as well. >> >> john >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this >> update while recommending caution due to the following existing >> information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this >> matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current >> developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." >> -Kristopher >> >> ********************** >> In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed >> psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state >> licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent >> legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP >> to better protect the public. [1 >> , >> 2 >> , >> 3 >> , >> 4 ] >> >> Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology >> >> - California's Business and Professions Code includes >> "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". >> - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as >> a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed >> psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 >> , >> 5 >> >> ] >> >> The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception >> >> - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" >> license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain >> graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited >> basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". >> - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third >> of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be >> engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 >> , >> 6 , 7 >> , >> 8 >> >> ] >> >> The 2025 regulatory transfer >> >> - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research >> Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California >> to the California Board of Psychology. >> - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines >> the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This >> move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the >> oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, >> ensuring better public protection. [3 >> , >> 4 , 9 >> ] >> >> Legal challenges to the licensing scheme >> The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal >> challenges from psychoanalysts. >> >> - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of >> Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal >> court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and >> Fourteenth Amendments. >> - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health >> professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health >> and safety. [6 >> , 10 >> , 11 >> , 12 >> >> ] >> >> [1] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [2] >> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ >> [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ >> >> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml >> [5] >> https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) >> [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [7] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> [8] >> https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/ >> >> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf >> [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm >> [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm >> [12] >> https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf >> >> ********************************************* >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau >>> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague >>> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great >>> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the >>> USA. >>> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the >>> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can >>> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put >>> a placard saying so in front of their office. >>> >>> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be >>> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood >>> by psychoanalysts in the US. >>> >>> Tell us >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> The-lacanalyst mailing list >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 06:33:06 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:33:06 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: mail problem -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: test 123 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques Siboni 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>> From jacsib at lutecium.org Mon Sep 29 10:00:01 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:00:01 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: Grep Robert's answer Jacques -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: test 123 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700 From: Tate To: Jacques B. Siboni 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 > 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 >> >> >> 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 >>> 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>> >>>> >>>> From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:54:42 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:54:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Scully-Robert, We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 13:56:55 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:56:55 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123 In-Reply-To: References: <3B003113-DD50-41D3-8C0F-51521186331C@netwood.net> Message-ID: 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 > To: Jacques B. Siboni > > > > 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 > > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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 > >>> 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>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Mon Sep 29 16:43:00 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Aviva, (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it appropriate, to invite a few others besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks to come to address this question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. Best regards, Scully Robert > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Dear Scully-Robert, > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > Aviva > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote: > mail problem > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: test 123 > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > From: Tate > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > 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>> > > > > -- > 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 From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 16:48:08 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:48:08 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour Scully Robert, Oui to all. I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 20:44:28 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the wild west). I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an LMFT(or licensed whatever...). Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, though. Cheers Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it > is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also > sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it > appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US > is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks > to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting > times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: test 123 > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From: Tate > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 20:57:56 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:57:56 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Kristopher, The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in insurance based practice and one in private practice. I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will return for the next meeting. Aviva On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and start offering > psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to provide mental health > services is futile for me since it's been a conversation that I have been > involved in here since 1993. Just to remind everyone - each state issues > these licenses and there is no one national licensure entity. So - > personally, this is a futile conversation for me since nothing took place > in the US that has changed this conversation. And - we can not talk about > it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No interest on my part to > contribute to this. It will continue to be each and every person's > individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I recommend a good > lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the EU, this is the > wild west). > > I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American > Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical > approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session > is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a > self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile > the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the > freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage > in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes > sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, > you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be > curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an > LMFT(or licensed whatever...). > > Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and > since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be > moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, > though. > > Cheers > Kristopher > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Bonjour Aviva, >> >> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >> >> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >> appropriate, to invite a few others >> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the US >> is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the weeks >> to come to address this >> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible meeting >> times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> >> >> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Scully-Robert, >> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >> > Aviva >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> > mail problem >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: test 123 >> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >> > From: Tate >> > To: Jacques Siboni >> > >> > >> > >> > 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>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Mon Sep 29 21:22:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:22:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] test 123 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Aviva. I don't do insurance at all (private pay only), so this allows me a lot more freedom to work it all out with my patients directly as they would be the only ones filing any complaints that would trigger any investigation (assuming all my services are otherwise equally available to everyone). I also have a job that pays for my healthcare (it would be a few thousand dollars for the two of us otherwise), so I can afford to "do what I want" in my own clinic. It is at once a compromise and a privilege, and gives me what I want... Jacques - jokingly.... if you could only move the seminar from Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (at the same time), my life would be in a full revolution on "my Mobious strip" from the last time I had the pleasure to take a lecture from you to right now :-) Until then... my return is imprecise... LOL... Best, Kristopher On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:58?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Thank you Kristopher, > > The insurance companies dont know, care about or understand what I do > since I document in their language and produce a profit for them. > > My patients do have an understanding , I have about 5 analysands now in > insurance based practice and one in private practice. > > I have talked about the cut with several patients. I cannot use it or > afford it in insurance based work. I am going to try in private practice > when it seems like good clinical treatment. I think the patient will > return for the next meeting. > > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 1:47?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> FYI: Discussing whether or not one can put up a shingle and >> start offering psychoanalysis without the specifics-state license to >> provide mental health services is futile for me since it's been a >> conversation that I have been involved in here since 1993. Just to remind >> everyone - each state issues these licenses and there is no one national >> licensure entity. So - personally, this is a futile conversation for me >> since nothing took place in the US that has changed this conversation. And >> - we can not talk about it as in "the US," but in each individual state. No >> interest on my part to contribute to this. It will continue to be each and >> every person's individual choice to practice or not (and either way, I >> recommend a good lawyer. I have liability insurance because this isn't the >> EU, this is the wild west). >> >> I am somewhat interested in a conversation about why American >> Psychoanalytic Circles continue to reject Lacan as a viable clinical >> approach and is there something to be done about this, why variable session >> is foreign and unacceptable to Americans (even though the 50 / 60 min is a >> self-imposed standard in all mental health), and how to possibly reconcile >> the risks when stepping outside of the "bureaucratic" lines that limits the >> freedoms of mental health practice (of any kind) in the US. Happy to engage >> in that seide of this conversation (in whatever format / forum it makes >> sense with this group(ing) of folks and interests. So - for example, Aviva, >> you should have no issue calling yourself a psychoanalyst, but I would be >> curious how you / anyone would handle variable length sessions as an >> LMFT(or licensed whatever...). >> >> Also - I can't make Thursday mornings for as long as I work for USC (and >> since over 60 people are involved in these meetings, it is unlikely to be >> moved to a different time anytime soon). Keeping an eye on other times, >> though. >> >> Cheers >> Kristopher >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:52?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Bonjour Aviva, >>> >>> (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, while it >>> is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the responses. I am also >>> sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on >>> Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find it >>> appropriate, to invite a few others >>> besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in the >>> US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of meeting in the >>> weeks to come to address this >>> question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible >>> meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to listen/participate. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Scully-Robert, >>> > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. >>> > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. >>> > Aviva >>> > >>> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> > mail problem >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> > Subject: test 123 >>> > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 >>> > From: Tate >>> > To: Jacques Siboni >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 06:51:56 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:51:56 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side Message-ID: Dear Kristopher About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. Jacques From jacsib at lutecium.org Tue Sep 30 13:41:03 2025 From: jacsib at lutecium.org (Jacques B. Siboni) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:41:03 +0000 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem in your country (and Germany and other countries) all the best Jacques On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > Bonjour Scully Robert, > Oui to all. > I will make myself available to a time that works for you.? I am > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > Aviva > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > wrote: > > Bonjour Aviva, > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > Unfortunately, I? already have a meeting this week at this time on > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > it appropriate, to invite a few others > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > listen/participate. > > Best regards, > > Scully Robert > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > wrote: > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > Aviva > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > mail problem > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? test 123 > > Date:? ?Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > From:? ?Tate > > To:? ? ?Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > > From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 16:56:06 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:56:06 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jacques, Is there a way to consider the sender of the email also a recipient of the same email (instead of being sent an automated confirmation response that the sent email was received by the listserve?). In other words, instead of being sent a received receipt for this email, I would simply see it as an incoming listserv email. This could avoid the questions as to whether or not an email went through and also would eliminate having to delete the confirmation mail since no actual content is there (so extra step/task). Just some ideas to consider as you search for the solution, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:50?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:08:59 2025 From: avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:08:59 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The more the merrier! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui the more the merrier To clarify I am open to all time possibilities to include everyone I just mean that if someone unfamiliar to us wants to join I myself will defer to Jacques. You can see below how I point to the specifics of my work at this time. I do not work as a psychotherapist and have no interest in psychology-I do operate under my license for financial reasons. I am hopeful that the specification of Lutecium will gain some interest towards our website, work and plus de jouir in general. Next, I will make some Lutecium tee shirts and merch (merchandise), just kidding! *Aviva Euripides* LMFT, Topologos Lutecium Domain 415-301-5219 avivaeuripides1 at gmail.com On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:44?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Robert your mail did reach us, I have to solve this lack of acknowledgment > > We can definitely increase the size of the list as it is a major problem > in your > country (and Germany and other countries) > > all the best > > Jacques > > On 9/29/25 4:48 PM, Aviva Euripides wrote: > > Bonjour Scully Robert, > > Oui to all. > > I will make myself available to a time that works for you. I am > > inviting others with an ok from Jacques Siboni. > > Aviva > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 9:43?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst > > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Aviva, > > > > (I will assume that you and the group are receiving this email, > > while it is only myself that is not receiving a copy of the > > responses. I am also sending a CC duplicate to Jacques to make sure.) > > > > Unfortunately, I already have a meeting this week at this time on > > Thursday. Also, I would propose, if you and your colleagues find > > it appropriate, to invite a few others > > besides myself to attend, as this psychoanalysis title question in > > the US is recurrent. In any case, I can envisage some kind of > > meeting in the weeks to come to address this > > question. Please let me know if this email was received, possible > > meeting times, and if you are open to inviting others to > > listen/participate. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Scully Robert > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 6:54?AM, Aviva Euripides > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Scully-Robert, > > > We are meeting this Thursday at 7 am PDT. > > > Let me know if you would like the Zoom link. > > > Aviva > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 11:35?PM Jacques B. Siboni via > > The-lacanalyst wrote: > > > mail problem > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: test 123 > > > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:44:53 -0700 > > > From: Tate > > > To: Jacques Siboni > > > > > > > > > > > > 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>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 17:37:21 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacques and Friends - So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same time, 7am Pacific Time)? I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment for me... LOL...). My very best to everyone, Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Kristopher > About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. > For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a > service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. > Jacques > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Notes re Legality of Psychoanalytic Praxis.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23547 bytes Desc: not available URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 17:50:14 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:50:14 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if works for all? At this time we are meeting every other week. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > Jacques and Friends - > > So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a > possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same > time, 7am Pacific Time)? > > I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in > psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a > "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any > authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue > for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in > debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment > for me... LOL...). > > My very best to everyone, > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Kristopher >> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the other. >> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >> Jacques >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:08:25 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if > works for all? > > At this time we are meeting every other week. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via > The-lacanalyst wrote: > >> Jacques and Friends - >> >> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >> >> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >> for me... LOL...). >> >> My very best to everyone, >> Kristopher >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Kristopher >>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>> other. >>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not a >>> service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>> Jacques >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:11:53 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:11:53 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday > beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < > euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >> works for all? >> >> At this time we are meeting every other week. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >> The-lacanalyst wrote: >> >>> Jacques and Friends - >>> >>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>> >>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>> for me... LOL...). >>> >>> My very best to everyone, >>> Kristopher >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Kristopher >>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>> other. >>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 20:25:42 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:25:42 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). Kristopher On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. > Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < > kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > >> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>> works for all? >>> >>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>> >>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>> >>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>> >>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and in >>>> psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>> for me... LOL...). >>>> >>>> My very best to everyone, >>>> Kristopher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>> other. >>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is not >>>>> a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >> >> 1.206.451.7020 >> > -- Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC 1.206.451.7020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tate at netwood.net Tue Sep 30 20:31:05 2025 From: tate at netwood.net (Tate) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:31:05 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates Message-ID: Dear Folks, I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and lagging. It will take me a moment also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are available. I would predict by next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact others before confirming. In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and the US, would around 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I cannot work on Fridays Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). Until then, Scully Robert From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:48:00 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:48:00 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] The dates and the legal side In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thank you Kristopher. Sorry for my typo. Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:25?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I hope Wednesdays work out for folks. > > Reminder: Paris will change time on 10/26, but we don't change time in the > US until 11/2, so during the week of 10/25-11/2 Paris will be only 8 hrs > ahead of Pacific (instead of the usual 9). If we meet on 10/29 (or you > meet on 10/30), 4pm in Paris will be 8am Pacific (instead of the current > 7am / conversely, 7am Pacific will be 3pm in Paris). > > Kristopher > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:11?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> There is no meeting next week as we are meeting this Thursday. >> Scully Robert, please send us the time (s) that work for you. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:08?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA < >> kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com> wrote: >> >>> Every other week sounds right for me and I can start any Wednesday >>> beginning with next week (10/8) if / however it may be best for others. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:50?AM Aviva Euripides < >>> euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Fine to meet Wed instead of Thursday for me, when would this start if >>>> works for all? >>>> >>>> At this time we are meeting every other week. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 10:37?AM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via >>>> The-lacanalyst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jacques and Friends - >>>>> >>>>> So - asking purely selfishly - would there be an interest and a >>>>> possibility to move Jacques' Seminar day from Thursday to Wednesday (same >>>>> time, 7am Pacific Time)? >>>>> >>>>> I shared some notes on very broad and general differences in law and >>>>> in psychoanalytic praxis between the US and France (see attached) as a >>>>> "language-in-common among us" handout and by no means as any >>>>> authoritative stance on it (nor claiming accuracy). This is not an issue >>>>> for me (how to *legally* practice psychoanalysis), so my interest in >>>>> debating law in this regard is minimal (as it produces no surplus enjoyment >>>>> for me... LOL...). >>>>> >>>>> My very best to everyone, >>>>> Kristopher >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:01?AM Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst < >>>>> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Kristopher >>>>>> About the dates, it is the same for me if you choose one day or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> For this insisting problem about the legality of a praxis which is >>>>>> not a service provider process. I expect a lot of Robert's experience. >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA >>> *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC >>> >>> 1.206.451.7020 >>> >> > > -- > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.* > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC > > 1.206.451.7020 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 20:51:28 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:51:28 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oui this time works for me. Thank you Scully Robert. Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm evenings weekdays? Aviva On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and > lagging. It will take me a moment > also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are > available. I would predict by > next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the Zoom > meeting. Wednesday nights > so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact > others before confirming. > > In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe and > the US, would around > 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I > cannot work on Fridays > Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). > > Until then, > > Scully Robert > > -- > The-lacanalyst mailing list > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com Tue Sep 30 22:36:07 2025 From: kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:36:07 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? To visualize this: 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides wrote: > Oui this time works for me. > Thank you Scully Robert. > Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? > > Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm > evenings weekdays? > > Aviva > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: > >> Dear Folks, >> >> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe and >> lagging. It will take me a moment >> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >> available. I would predict by >> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >> others before confirming. >> >> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >> and the US, would around >> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >> cannot work on Fridays >> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >> >> Until then, >> >> Scully Robert >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From euripides.aviva at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 23:02:11 2025 From: euripides.aviva at gmail.com (Aviva Euripides) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 16:02:11 -0700 Subject: [The-Lacanalyst] Tentative Times and Dates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh yikes On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 3:36?PM Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst wrote: > 6pm Pacific is 3am the next day in Paris... would Jacques be available? > > To visualize this: > > 6am - 12pm Pacific = 3pm - 9pm Paris > > 12pm - 6pm Pacific = 9pm - 3am Paris > > 6pm - 12am Pacific = 3am - 9am Paris > > 12am - 6am Pacific = 9am - 3pm Paris > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:52?PM Aviva Euripides > wrote: > >> Oui this time works for me. >> Thank you Scully Robert. >> Jacques, John, Quinn, Kristopher? >> >> Quinn is on EDT-Quinn how late does or does not work for you in the pm >> evenings weekdays? >> >> Aviva >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:31?PM Tate via The-lacanalyst < >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Folks, >>> >>> I cannot meet this week since I will be just getting back from Europe >>> and lagging. It will take me a moment >>> also to contact all those interested at PLACE to see what times they are >>> available. I would predict by >>> next week or the week afterward that I could establish a date for the >>> Zoom meeting. Wednesday nights >>> so far seem to work as a first estimate, but again I need to contact >>> others before confirming. >>> >>> In order to take into consideration the change of times between Europe >>> and the US, would around >>> 6:00pm or 7pm PST work? And would Wed or Tuesdays work as a proposal ( I >>> cannot work on Fridays >>> Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). >>> >>> Until then, >>> >>> Scully Robert >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: