About me.
Oles Maniuk
I first learned about psychoanalysis in 1987, thanks to a three-volume book miraculously published in Tbilisi, The Unconscious. Nature. Functions. Research Methods". In 1988, in Tallinn, I was quite unexpectedly able to meet a student of Leon Shertok. Thanks to this, I entered into a personal correspondence with Shertok that lasted for two years, and for the first time I learned about Jacques Lacan. In Tallinn, I gained my first three years of experience in analysis.
From 1993 to 1997, I studied with Le Goffe and underwent personal analysis with his student in Yerevan (La Nouvelle École lacanienne). In 1995, I started practicing as a psychoanalyst myself (today I have 25 years of experience). In 1998, I began a long-lasting (until 2004) communication with Charles Melman, and on his advice, I plunged into the study of Lacan's seminars and the rediscovery of Freud's primary sources, his letters and diary entries. Although it would be more correct to write: the study of myself by Lacan's seminars. Not I, but they determined my research.
Not I, but they guided me, changing my route. And this continues to this day.
My period of study at the branch of the Austrian Institute for Psychotherapy and my communication with some representatives of the establishment (IPA and EPF) led me to the final conclusion that psychoanalysis is dead in respectable psychoanalytic institutions. My further path was determined by Lacan's instruction to study in a psychoanalytic way the symbolic apparatus of thinking in Taoist and Buddhist traditions as a possible way of developing psychoanalysis (following the example of Bion, who created his version of psychoanalysis based on the Buddhist school of Chittamata). This is how "archaeoanalysis" was created.
The manifesto of psychoanalysis
Psychoanalysis has nothing to do with the psyche.
What psychoanalysis has to do with is meaning.
Meaning is present only outside of man and the world, subject and object. It exists in the dimension of language.
Meaning is manifested in the states of speech and body as a symptom (without being a body).
The manifestations of meaning are purely singular: one person is one being, and eventual: one person as one being is only within strictly defined, situational limits.
The analyzer is the possibility of the Other (the other person as another being).
The analyzer is the boundary between any given being and the possibility of the Other, which is not exhausted by any given being.
The primary psychoanalytic conflict is between the existing being and the possibility of the Other. This conflict is insoluble within the limits of existing being (human).
The only way to resolve the conflict is the disappearance of being (human) and the transition to a different position-the position of "between." In fact, it is death for life.
Psychoanalysis is a "midwife" who helps this death to be born inside a person (being).
A psychoanalyst is a person who is constantly in the twilight, laminal zone between the individual and the Other.
The only task of the psychoanalyst is to bring the analyzed person to a point where he or she loses all the usual mental supports, to reflect and return this moment of loss, which is the real gain.
That's why I call psychoanalysis what it should be called-"archaeoanalysis," the dissolution of the foundations.