[The-Lacanalyst] Fwd: test 123

[Aviva Euripides]

Dear Scully Robert,
D'accord, merci.
Aviva

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025, 3:00 AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <
the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:

> Grep Robert's answer
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Re: test 123
> Date:   Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:57:13 -0700
> From:   Tate <tate at netwood.net>
> To:     Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org>
>
>
>
> Rehello Jacques,
>
> Because of the mail problem, I am sending my response to you so you can
> forward it to them.
> Hello all,
>
> There are three different levels to respond to the question of what is
> involved in using the title 'psychoanalyst' in the US, specifically in
> California.
>
> 1 - The title of psychoanalyst is only part of stature law in NY (and
> may be Mass, I am not sure of this though). What is part of statute law
> in California
> is the use of the title psychologist. I would invite you to compare the
> wording of NY for psychoanalyst with that of CA (§ 2903) to recognize
> the difference.
>
> 2 – However, if you use psychoanalysis to treat people and provide a
> service, i.e., as psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis, then you fall under
> the statute law
> for psychologists and are liable for sanctions. If you do not, but still
> use the title psychoanalyst, you do not fall under the interpretation of
> (§ 2903).
>
> 3– Lastly, beyond the law of any state, however, the real problem, at
> least for many analysands in the US, is how not to confuse practicing
> analysis with doing
> psychotherapeutic analysis. Every US analyst I have met to date does not
> practice psychoanalysis, in the sense of Lacan, but only
> psychotherapeutic psychoanalysis.
> Not only do they not practice psychoanalysis, they do not even
> understand what the difference is to begin so, by default, usually fall
> under the label of psychologists
> improvising a kind of psychoanalytic therapy.
> As you can tell, for me and others, what is primary is (3), if this is
> not resolved, then the problems of (1) and (2) remain moot. To clarify
> what is at stake, it really
> takes more than some email exchanges.
> Best regards,
>
> Scully Robert
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 2025, at 2:22 AM, Jacques B. Siboni <jacsib at lutecium.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Actually your mail has been sent, we have the problem that so far
> > mailman does not send a copy
> > to the sender!! I have to solve this, but it you look in the archives
> > you'll see your
> > mail went through:
> > https://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/2025-September/date.html
> >
> > But can you some day take the time to answer to Kristopher and John
> >
> > Talk soon
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > 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>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>
> --
> 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: <http://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/attachments/20250929/60d599c8/attachment-0006.htm>