Our knowledge of analysts can be heard by the psychotic as certainty that is made in response, with the risk that the same analysis again place of repetition of his delusional relationship with each other. Piera Aulagnier cites a very interesting case of a psychotic subject. The core of delirium is very similar to the Schreber: God wants femineizarlo. Shortly after you begin your analysis, rejects his delirium. The analytical discourse has taught him that it was not God who wanted to do woman. That was a mistake. You now know that it is not God but his mother who argues that desire.
Delirium changes of language, but remains the same himself. Nicholas makes me gifts, brings me objects, significant for him, and steals objects, indifferent to me, my query. Search objects in a concretion of love, it articulates the love with the enjoyment of the other, represented by his analyst. Seeking a third instance, which stands in the imaginary collision. Resulted it to another psychiatrist to make it so. Making object of the psychotic transfer has its risks, we cannot resort to interpretation to cut transfer, the only thing we can do is support it but this may lead us to an impasse Nicolas will exit the impasse there, interposing between him and his analyst, an imaginary mediation: a woman wearing my name. It builds a path that leads (are his words): mother to women, women to women. Now the there are so many women in the world can acquire a new meaning: not the fall, the devaluation of the object; but there are other women who are neither my mother nor my analyst, thus building a stub object, or at least a place to host it. Another risk in working with psychotic, is the erotomania, only apparently opposite to the delirium of love. Both respond to the question by the enjoyment of the other.