Two speeches are found, and each one reveals to the other as a place in which every utterance can be restated radically, in which no evidence have certainty be evident for the other. Psychosis questions the common heritage of certainty and the causal logic on which our culture is founded. Psychoanalysis is a praxis. This means that in the field of Freudian experience there is no place for a theoretical knowledge of a psychic phenomenon, without this knowledge makes it possible (I’m not saying that you would ensure) an action on the phenomenon. The paradox lies in that, on the one hand, I have a theoretical model that allows us to understand the speech psychotic and, on the other, this understanding is in general (or in most cases) ineffective. Psychoses question what we mean by psychoanalysis, analytical device and place of the analyst. I’ll then enunciate the hypothesis that I intend to hold in this work: there is no Psychoanalysis of the psychotic but the psychotic can benefit from psychoanalysis, used their analyst to obtain something that (in certain circumstances), and only among all mental health specialists, is able to offer you, precisely as psychoanalyst. You authorize us to speak of an adventure (of the psychotic) that, unlike the neurosis, we have not lived subjectively?.

This makes obstacle in healing. We cannot understand anything of psychosis, because our mental scheme of neurotic is organized according to our neurotic, phantom ghost who is founded in castration, which is what in the psychotic there. We can live with our paranoia, our schizia, that which we call our melancholy, with all those horrors that we are passionate about and ill, with our madness in sum; without which we would not be who we are. Lacan says: And being of man not only he cannot comprehend what is without insanity, but that it would not even be the being of man, but take itself madness how limit their freedom (about psychic causality) all arder.