[The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123

[Jacques B. Siboni]

Grep Robert's answer

Jacques



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: test 123
Date: 	Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700
From: 	Tate <tate at netwood.net>
To: 	Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org>



Rehello Jacques,

Because of the mail problem, I am sending my response to you so you can 
forward it to them.
Hello all,

There are three different levels to respond to the question of what is 
involved in using the title 'psychoanalyst' in the US, specifically in 
California.

1 - The title of psychoanalyst is only part of stature law in NY (and 
may be Mass, I am not sure of this though). What is part of statute law 
in California
is the use of the title psychologist. I would invite you to compare the 
wording of NY for psychoanalyst with that of CA (§ 2903) to recognize 
the difference.

2 – However, if you use psychoanalysis to treat people and provide a 
service, i.e., as psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis, then you fall under 
the statute law
for psychologists and are liable for sanctions. If you do not, but still 
use the title psychoanalyst, you do not fall under the interpretation of 
(§ 2903).

3– Lastly, beyond the law of any state, however, the real problem, at 
least for many analysands in the US, is how not to confuse practicing 
analysis with doing
psychotherapeutic analysis. Every US analyst I have met to date does not 
practice psychoanalysis, in the sense of Lacan, but only 
psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis.
Not only do they not practice psychoanalysis, they do not even 
understand what the difference is to begin so, by default, usually fall 
under the label of psychologists
improvising a kind of psychoanalytic therapy.
As you can tell, for me and others, what is primary is (3), if this is 
not resolved, then the problems of (1) and (2) remain moot. To clarify 
what is at stake, it really
takes more than some email exchanges.
Best regards,

Scully Robert




> On Sep 29, 2025, at 2:22 AM, Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org> 
> wrote:
>
> Actually your mail has been sent, we have the problem that so far 
> mailman does not send a copy
> to the sender!! I have to solve this, but it you look in the archives 
> you'll see your
> mail went through:
> https://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/2025-September/date.html
>
> But can you some day take the time to answer to Kristopher and John
>
> Talk soon
>
> Jacques
>
> On 9/29/25 9:07 AM, Tate wrote:
>> Here is the address I sent the mail to: the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org 
>> <mailto:the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org>
>>
>> I pushed reply to a previous email, and the above was the address 
>> that it sent it to. I then received the reply:
>> ]
>> =====
>> Your message entitled
>>
>> ANALYSIS IN THE US
>>
>> was successfully received by the The-lacanalyst mailing list.
>> ====
>>
>> But in fact, it looks like it is sending my original email only back 
>> to me, to my oriiginal address and leaving everyone else out:
>>
>> In any case, let me know,
>>
>> SR
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2025, at 11:31 PM, Jacques B. Siboni 
>>> <jacsib at lutecium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't understand. Are you making sure you send the mail to 
>>> topologos at lutecium.org?
>>> If so please send me a copy of the refused message. Anyway this is 
>>> weird and not standard.
>>>
>>> I forward your mail to the group
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> On 9/29/25 12:44 AM, Tate wrote:
>>>> Hello Jacques,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have pushed reply now twice to the emails from the Lutecium list 
>>>> in my INBOX, and they do not seem to be getting through.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, it seems they are coming back to my address and CCing me 
>>>> also. Do I need to push something besides reply?
>>>>
>>>> In any case, here are my previous two messages:
>>>>
>>>> Let me know,
>>>>
>>>> Scully-Robert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> Well, I sent out a previous email and it seems it did not go 
>>>> through ot went to the wrong mailbox. Let me know if this goes through.
>>>> I will copy-paste what I had already sent:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> << Bonjour Jacques and others,
>>>>
>>>> In this initial probe, I am sending out a brief post just to check 
>>>> whether the email invitation works.
>>>>
>>>> It was a pleasure to meet again in Paris for the homage to Jean-Michel.
>>>>
>>>> The question of what is required to work under the title of 
>>>> psychoanalyst should be gone through carefully, not mistaking, for 
>>>> example,
>>>> policy with statutory law, or psychoanalysis with psychoanalytic 
>>>> therapy.
>>>>
>>>> This much said, I am not so sure email is the right forum.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if this goes through, how, and when you would care to 
>>>> address this.
>>>>
>>>> Truly,
>>>>
>>>> Scully-Robert Groome>>
>>>>
>>>>