Text of Session Six from the Series of Free Association Sessions

 

Session Date: 2025/11/29

First Question:

I don't have complete expertise in this field, and now you yourself should decide whether this question is answerable in this session or not.

Yesterday, after many years, I had an experience at a gathering. In that group, when people came together, after a while they started talking about their sufferings. I felt that in that space, a human relationship was forming and we were being set aside from that realm of image—in a way. But I didn't understand whether this event was actually happening or was merely occurring in a symbolic form. However, before this, I had never had such an experience in such gatherings. In reality, conversations about suffering and setting aside that image did not used to happen.

Dr. Rabiei's Association:

Communication can be considered the most human realm; that is, it is in communication that a human being finds meaning. When I say "meaning," I don't necessarily mean a specific definition, but in the realm of communication, a person exits that narcissistic space or the singular space—which cannot even be called "human." That is why this space is very human.

However, the space of communication is very difficult. What is the reason for this difficulty? Because there is a strange struggle to return to that singular space. This struggle may not be very obvious, but even when all your mental effort is to understand and comprehend the other person—or in other words, to see what they want to say—on the surface it seems you want to penetrate into the other person, but you still want to enter their being with the same singular yardstick and criteria. That is why this process is very distressing and difficult and requires time; meaning, it requires continuity.

Why continuity? Because you may feel in one session or in an encounter with an individual or group that you have understood the other person well, but as long as that process does not have continuity and the effects of that previous relationship do not reveal themselves, it is not clear whether you have truly been able to connect with the other person or not. That is why single-session connections—which are not necessarily just one session, for example, you might set a time metric for yourself and say if we reach a result after three sessions, that's great, otherwise, I'll set the relationship aside—meaning, if we could understand each other, then good, and if not, the relationship ends. In reality, you set rules for yourself. These rules are mainly based on those same singular rules: you say if I entered their world and understood, and reciprocally they did the same, meaning you specify a set of rules for yourself—which may be different for each person.

But the clear point is that a relationship reveals itself in continuity; meaning, it is in continuity that it becomes clear whether that session or that meeting has taken on the color and smell of a relationship or not. That is why relationships that take on the form of a human relationship are those where the number of those meetings continues based on an order and regularity. That continuation and continuity, in fact, becomes a symbolic realm; meaning, it takes on a symbolic order.

For this reason, single meetings may have lasting effects. For example, a meeting may be very traumatic for you—a meeting that is always working. For example, you might see a psychoanalyst for one session, but that meeting works with you forever. Here, although the relationship has not continued in an imagistic form, it has that endurance; it has that permanence and is working. For this reason, this continuity of effect is very important. Now if this continuity is accompanied by image, such a relationship becomes one that evokes the famous story: "Different spaces connect with each other and a coherence forms so that it does not become psychotic."

So it is very important to see what kind of effect the conversation you have from a single meeting has and how long it is supposed to last. Does this endurance want to have an imagistic endurance or a symbolic endurance? I don't want to use too many specialized terms. When we say human, we do not necessarily mean momentary imagistic relationship. When several people gather together and gradually, these sessions, in addition to image, leave symbolic effects behind, or rules form and an order takes shape, it may have very extensive productions and effects.

We see these cases a lot. For example, a meeting may initially have the form of a party—the same one where they wanted to have an imagistic relationship—but you see it lasts forever. If we want to give an example, it is the meetings of Henry Corbin with Allameh Tabatabai. They were from different fields, and perhaps in the first encounter, it was never intended for this meeting to become a very historical meeting and its effects to last forever, but it happened. That is, gradually, although they were from different worlds, it passed from the imagistic state and found order. That order can have various dimensions.

Let's return to your question and conversation: In this continuity, people recognize each other and gradually may reach each other in places in the long term. So if you claim in the first meeting that you have understood the other person, this is a big lie, because it is impossible to know a person in one meeting. That is why in meetings that occur, you see everyone shows a strange eagerness and reflects in this way that they have understood and comprehended each other very well. Such meetings may have no lasting result at all. But a meeting may initially be full of tension—there may be fighting or even complaints that they don't understand each other—but that same continuity and staying in the meeting and that space I mentioned—recognizing each other, even without mutual understanding—ultimately may lead to a very lasting relationship that is valuable from various dimensions.

If you have an opinion or question regarding this same inquiry you had, you can ask.

Questioner:
Thank you. I prefer to contemplate it more and later, if I have a question, I'll ask again.

Second Question:

In the previous session—the one where Mr. Dr. Nodehi spoke—now regarding what you said—that perhaps mutual perception may not happen, but a connection may form—what came to my mind was this: He said that if attention (ettenesh) happens, then perception occurs and then it affects different parts of the brain and I don't know, the person becomes hypnotized. That's how it was.

What came to my mind at that time was a concept called "intuition" that we don't find in artificial intelligence either—meaning artificial intelligence cannot act intuitively. Then, what came to my mind was that firstly, that intuition is formed based on previous experiences—meaning it has an unconscious state. For example, something you say: "I feel that"—various senses seem to gather together in intuition, then an issue forms, then an idea suddenly comes to a person's mind. Considering that, perhaps you yourself have been in a similar situation: for example, it suddenly occurs to a person that "Well, I could have done this too"—and you come and, for example, in relation to that patient, you do it and it works. Meaning you do something and it also—well, has a very sudden state.

Dr. Rabiei's Association:

Actually, this is related to the previous discussion, from the perspective of how we know that a person has intuition and this intuition is distinct and different from an error, a coincidence, an adjacency, or even events that occur in different structures—like psychotics—such as superstitions and many things that are connected or inspired, but are an error—it can even be an illusion. How can we realize and distinguish these?

Exactly in human relationship it becomes clear whether this thought, idea, and feeling that has come to you is an error or an insight, an inspiration. How does this happen? In endurance and continuity. Meaning when you are in communication with others and your communication has continuity and there is a back-and-forth between you and others, there it becomes clear how much of it is error, how much of it is real and consistent with the external world and functional.

If you see, for example, in one place, a person is hospitalized because of this insight and inspiration and another is recognized as a genius and causes problem-solving—or even causes various books to be written and even takes on a religious or scientific color and gains value and sanctity—all of this becomes clear in human relationship. So human relationship—that's why I say continuity is very important—and you cannot assume every relationship as a human relationship. Human relationship is in that continuity—it is validation, it is testing, it is back-and-forth, it is correction, and your position is in the process of transformation. This is very important.

In clinical practice it is also the same. In clinical practice, we can also say that a connection has formed between therapist and patient or analysand with analyst, such that we can say this connection has the color and smell of human connection—meaning the characteristics we were talking about have a precedent in it. And if so, we can talk about intuition; otherwise, anything that comes to our mind and every idea and thought—even if from our own perspective it is very mature and very strong—as long as it does not show itself in relationship and there is no back-and-forth and "the other"—the other that I mean is not a person whom only their mother confirms or vice versa, a mother who only confirms her child—that is not that type of relationship. A relationship where the "other" itself is also being assessed—meaning that other we are talking about, is an other that is being corrected based on experience, is in transformation.

So this is a very important matter that you can specify in communication with another that "how much of a halaj are you" and where you stand—whether those ideas and thoughts and your inner world have the capability of use in the human realm or not. If it does, then those ideas and inspirations that come to your mind—which is also very unique—and goes into back-and-forth with another and another confirms it, that is where in fact it can be referred to as a genius idea—an idea behind which personal inspirations exist. What is intuition anyway? Intuition means the unique perspective of a subject itself. But when another also confirms it—although there is one point: the point is that sometimes you bring out your idea, but you are far ahead of the other and the other may not confirm it, but there is plenty of evidence that, for example, Galileo or many others—at that very time, others deeply accepted their ideas and intuitions but apparently wouldn't go along with it—now either due to prejudices, or due to fear they had, or for many different reasons, or even because their own position might decline, they would oppose. But deep down, they were confirming it, just not verbalizing it. Or for example, Hallaj, Suhrawardi, Socrates—they all said things that were ahead of public understanding or the understanding of that time. But this does not mean that the other was not aware—the other was aware at a level, but was not verbalizing it.

Sometimes something is said by a person and it is not intuition at all—it may be an illusion—and they say others don't understand. But there, if a little exploration is done, it becomes clear that this rejection by the other is different from the rejection that the other receives and understands at a level, and these two cannot be considered the same.

Questioner:
Can I ask another question—I mean I have a lot of questions in my mind, but let me see if others have questions too. Later, if I have a question, I'll ask.

Third Question:

Another thing that came to my mind at that time was that Dr. Nodehi was explaining about it—there was a place where he said "critical thinking" that, for example, when hypnosis happens, well then, for example, critical thinking is set aside—or diminishes. Also, in hypnosis where dissociation happens—then this thing that exists in psychoanalysis now, for example, that critical thinking may exist, but I felt that, for example, there it is different—in psychoanalysis, it is also possible that a person is hypnotized at that very moment, but also has critical thinking.

I thought that this analysis—because it has a state of mentalization—with that analysis that, for example, they say in hypnosis—those who respond less to hypnosis because that critical thinking comes in between and has a state of resistance and inflexibility—I wanted to see what your association is regarding this. Because in psychoanalysis, the third analytic space comes in between—it has a state where, as if the person looks at themselves from above—then looks at themselves and the other.

Dr. Rabiei's Association:

What has been said, if I don't want to open that discussion completely—because that discussion belongs to another realm—still, if I want to answer part of your question: From suggestion to the deepest type of hypnosis where they take a person, in other words, to a realm where critical thinking may have no meaning at all—because when you say critical thinking, the person must be in alertness—in the psychological sense, not necessarily physiological—at a high level. That was why Freud set aside hypnosis in his therapeutic work—because in the space of hypnosis, a person might encounter many issues and material, but that encounter was one that did not have this level of alertness with it—one of its items is this critical thinking.

But when you, in this same level of alertness, have a meeting with your unconscious material, well, it is very different—meaning you, as if—of course they are not comparable, these are two different topics and I am not comparing them—but I just want you to know that there is a time you encounter something while awake, a time you encounter something in sleep. It is true that both are valuable—just as you also bring dreams and analyze them—but that same dream is also analyzable when the person associates in that alertness. That is why in therapy sessions, if the patient is sleepy, the therapy should be stopped or they should be asked to associate about it. If they cannot associate, it needs to be stopped so the person realizes that this is a space where, on the contrary, one must encounter material at a high level of alertness.

Meaning when the person does not have alertness, they must stop. Why? Because it has no value. Even if a person, for example, has used alcohol and encounters many things, but later when they come to themselves and become alert, they may not remember anything from them—even if they remember, it is as if it is not very tangible for them. But if you, in that state of alertness, have an encounter with issues you could not encounter before, well, naturally you encounter that story with many psychological and physical symptoms. That is why, in order to assess whether this person's encounter is a real or artificial one, you must see whether, when the person says about that thing "I remembered," the things that come with it and their bodily symptoms, all bear witness—testify—that this is a real encounter or not. If they bear witness, that is where critical thinking even makes sense.

And then, now you must see whether these make sense in the realm of hypnosis or not. Of course, the discussion that took place in that session was a different discussion—its place and realm were also different and I will not enter that discussion—but I wanted to distinguish these two topics.

Fourth Question:

A question that arose for me is: Recently—I don't know how true it is—I heard that in the future, artificial intelligence can—meaning it will have the advancement that a human can communicate with those they have lost—now deceased or anything that has no external existence—and talk with them, be in communication, so to speak. I wanted to know if such a thing is true? Can it be to the benefit of humans or to their detriment? Can it harm humans psychologically? Please answer this for me. Thank you.

Dr. Rabiei's Association:

Your question has two aspects—meaning two parts. One aspect is why a human has such a desire—why do they want to communicate with the dead at all? The second is why they want to face it through an artificial thing—through an artificial thing? So it becomes two questions: one is that in the world of reality, a human does not have such capabilities to want to be in communication with the past—now with the dead—but artificial intelligence is said to have such capabilities—to have made such advancements that it can create these capabilities for humans. Now I don't know how true it is, but well, I heard.

Whether this happens or not is another question itself—so that makes three questions. So one is why a human has such a desire—wants to communicate with the dead and their predecessors? Second, why do they want to have such an encounter through a realm or artificial tool? And third, is such a thing—such an event—possible at all or not? It becomes three questions, each of which can itself be a new space for discussion. But I will try to associate part of each.

That a human wants and desires to communicate with the dead and their past, because they are present—they may not be present imagistically and physically, but their presence is there. Meaning, the very fact that you are asking such a question now is a concern—meaning a part of your being wants such a thing—desires such a thing. Now why they want this, the person should themselves, in another session, associate and talk about it. But this is a concern that exists in all of us and they are present symbolically. They are present—we may have lost our father and mother or close ones or many different people in our lives—and even our previous generations—but within this very language, they are present in overt and covert forms. And their presence is not without reason and pointless—meaning they have many messages. That they come—meaning if you see a person dreams that they are meeting their dead, they haven't come for no reason—they haven't come by chance—they have come to deliver a message, they have come to say something. In other words, the human wants, through that dead person, to resolve part of their being, to receive part of the message.

Now some may reject this same dream and same question and same concern again—say that this is of no use at all, these are pointless, these are nonsense—and distance themselves from it in various ways—which may then return again in a different form and appearance. They have messages regarding the subject itself—meaning it's not necessarily only about the past and themselves. I said this with an ambiguity—because they have messages both regarding the subject and regarding themselves—but this does not mean we are meaningless in the past—meaning the subject itself also has meaning within the past—the language of the past. So if you see a person dreams that their mother says something from her own time and, on the contrary, helps solve your problem in this very time, then this is where they say—time is not linear—meaning the unconscious's time is not linear and on the contrary, here, because time gains a non-linear meaning, it is helpful to us.

This topic is one that much can be associated about it.

Let's go to the second part of your question, which was actually why a human wants to encounter their dead artificially. Well, we want to distance ourselves from our dead in various ways. For example, in Turkish culture they say that if a dead person comes in a dream and gives you something, this is a good sign—they gave it to you. But if they wanted to take something from you, this is a bad sign—it's likely something bad will happen to you or you might even die. Well, you see how much fear and terror there is towards the dead and this relationship must be with distance—meaning if the person wants to give that thing, it becomes a mediator—that thing—what it is—is determined based on its content what message they want to give you. But you should not give them anything. For this reason, then that mediator must always be—you should not communicate with your dead very directly.—meaning you don't want a real manifestation—a direct manifestation with them.—one of them is censorship—the same meeting we see in dreams, with a thousand censorships. Even in dreams, during the day we don't have meetings at all—and those who talk about meeting their dead during the day, it's usually not very common and they might get various labels.

So one of its reasons—is that there must always be a barrier, a mediator, a state through which we have the meeting.

Third part of your question: whether such a thing—such an event—is possible or not. Well, in the imagistic realm such a thing is possible—meaning they could even build a person anatomically and now with capabilities and many different items, precisely transform them and also give them an artificial soul and you start a dialogue with it. And this, as is the case even now—it may become more and more advanced. But I return to the same issue I said: that human relationship we had in the first question, that event does not happen—meaning that human relationship that we said had three characteristics, does not occur there—that continuity, that order, that production—in its human sense does not occur. In that relationship, these characteristics and features may exist, but your connection is with artificial intelligence and your connection is no longer with a human—in the precise sense of the word human.

Fifth Question:

A question came to my mind now, we have something called compulsion to repeat, we see this compulsion to repeat in individual relationships too, for example, something happened to a person in childhood—they had a relationship with their parents—now they are exactly repeating it in another form. Then you said many times a relationship doesn't form at all—the person wants to return to their initial state again.

In that same "Future Human" session, I think Dr. Marsalpour was mentioned, that time—history—the same that you say is not linear—meaning we are in repetition. Then this question arose for me—does it really mean this? Meaning, for example, we say that we think humans are moving forward—a series of transformations are happening—this same artificial intelligence, the advancements it makes—could this exactly be the same repetition? Meaning, in the imagistic realm we think we are progressing, but in reality it is a repetition? And a psychoanalysis—as if a psychoanalyst is needed historically to come and extract from repetition. This came to my mind now.

Dr. Rabiei's Association:

I have a challenge with part of this topic and conversation and it could be a critique—of course critique not in the sense of rejection, and critique in the sense that it causes a new series of associations. On the contrary, I say this is transformation, but a very different transformation. Meaning, can we say that my communication with my child is the same as with this, for example, phone? No, why isn't it the same? Because we are from two different worlds. Ask these very small children if they are afraid of artificial intelligence? They'll laugh at you. But ask our peers if they are afraid of artificial intelligence? They usually say they are afraid. Meaning they are in two different times—the connection they have taken with artificial intelligence is different from mine.

I remember—these academic kids get together—sometimes those who are university lecturers complain—they say why are these students like this? Now they bring various reasons—they say why are they so rude? And we, for example, back then saw the professor with a great distance—respected them—greeted them—but they are not like that and they say they are unethical...

On the contrary, in my opinion, their ethics are much more real than our ethics. If we saw the professor from afar and greeted and did whatever they told us and read a lot of books too—but they don't do this. All those manners that you probably see yourself—we are from two different generations. On the contrary, our ethics were much more questionable than theirs. This from another perspective—and this doesn't mean it's only this perspective—but I want to tell you that this new student is on the contrary much more real—they say why should I greet this one? Or in another space—why should I, for example, show respect?

We had the same too—meaning we might have seen our professors back then—for example, really disliked them—didn't like them—didn't want to see them at all—but pretense was more in us. But you see in these, no—this is not pretense—and you see at the right time they also speak very directly and frankly. And we at that time—when, for example, if we were told to read this book, we would go and read a few other books too—not that it was necessarily an ethical matter—it was that there were a thousand different gains—one of them was this pretense. But this new student is saying, what use is this talk of yours to me? If it's useful to me, I will listen—I will read. They say it directly—I have classes with various kids in different fields—medical students and humanities fields from bachelor's and master's to PhD—especially these newer generations—they are very keen on how this talk of yours connects with the world today. But we were not—we were not like that. Meaning our generation—when I say we—we cannot lump everyone together and say everyone is the same—that's a mistake. But if we want to look comparatively, I'm telling you this so that you don't judge too quickly based on appearances that they are unethical—and there are other interpretations too.

I still don't say they were unethical or these—I want to say they are from two different times. Can you say these are a repetition of each other? No—on the contrary, I want to say that this—we also talked in that session—many in various fields—the psychoanalysis field—I see very high-level articles coming, for example, saying the same thing that ethics have disappeared—the Name-of-the-Father is disappearing. No, it's not like that. On the contrary, it may be that in its initial form—the same examples I gave—it is losing its value and function, but it is transforming into a newer form—it's very valuable. And those rituals that existed before, now they are not.

If you are looking to find repetition—at least on the surface such a thing does not exist. If you see this—your seeing has a problem—you need to change your place. Again, this doesn't mean time is linear or non-linear—meaning I myself, from one position, accept that relationship—that non-linear time—more. But this doesn't mean you can deny linear time either—and you need to shift—you need to see how much of what you are seeing—that I say it is in human relationship that we can—and that too in continuity—that we realize how much of these ideas we have in mind—the things we are saying—how much is inspiration, how much is intuition, and how much is illusion. These, on the contrary, show themselves within human relationship. Human relationship is a test measure—a stage for individual testing too—meaning if you are to have an individual life too—which is that subjecthood—that too becomes clear within connection—meaning not in a singular relationship.

Considering these conversations, you should ask yourself again whether one can talk about that repetition? Or that repetition we are seeing—at the point where we are standing and seeing that repetition—has a problem. Now whoever has said—in psychoanalysis they also talk about repetition—but we must see whether this repetition is a repetition that actually exists, or is it a repetition that I am sitting at that point and seeing it? And that is where you can connect.

Let me give a concrete example so it's understandable: For example, suppose your child comes to you and says, mother, father—I went and used such and such substance today or did such and such thing. Then you, based on those desires, fears—your own temporal realm—go back and panic—because it is based on your own developments. And the reaction you show is based on your own time and you don't realize that for the time of this new generation, the story is different—a different form—and for them, these things they try and experience may not be as scary as they were for us. Because if you don't connect, you see everything as repetition.

One of the factors we see repetition a lot—is that if you want to change your place to see things, it's very hard. For this reason, we unconsciously like to see many things as repetition—so we don't try more—so we don't see more of those things that may even be against our idea—like that Gulliver story—who saw everything as repetition—that movie was very symbolic.

Sixth Question:

More what I meant was that now those discourses came to my mind—academic, master/slave, hysteric, and psychoanalytic. Then now our generation, well, has come under an ideological dominance—I became that master/slave discourse and if they want to exit those discourses they must be psychoanalyzed a lot... to go to the position of psychoanalytic discourse.—Now the generation that are our children—have they not been under this ideological dominance?!

Dr. Rabiei's Association:

The connection that the upcoming generation has with technology is different from the connection our generation and predecessors had with technology—whether we like it or not, this is a fact. You cannot with one repetition whitewash everything and say no, the same relationship that was in us—was in my predecessors—will also be in the future. How can we realize this? When our relationship is, on the contrary, outside of our current time—the different quality is exactly this.

Why do they say homosexual relationship is criticized in the psychoanalysis field? The reason is that homosexual relationship causes you to only have a connection with your own time—your own time meaning that same homosexuality. But when you came and connected with another time, that is when with a different quality—you can finally connect—you can finally understand what is happening in their world—and what their concerns are—what their needs are—what they want. This is very important.

This does not mean they are not going to have a master/slave relationship—but it will be different from the form that exists now and existed in the past. As indeed, if you enter, you see these distinctions—distinction is one of the basic characteristics of being human—a human finds meaning when they can distinguish. If you ever see that you are seeing similar stories, you should be very suspicious—one time you say this is the same—this sameness—and that is where, as if that distinction is covered—so that you calm down—so that you don't, for example, try too hard—not have a challenge—this happens.

Now when you want to see the distinction, that is where you, as if, show your desire for connection—meaning when you ask—question what the story is from the next generation—then they understand that you want to move towards their time. But when you say—you are explaining it—well, the story becomes very different. I'm just now saying here that there is a difference between these—this doesn't mean we have understood what they want—what they are—what will happen—we say there is a difference—so that finally the possibility of relationship arises. Like therapist-patient connection—why do you give them so much space? You give space so that they share their realm with you—or so they realize that you want to see it. This is very important.

On the contrary, the patient is testing you. Why do they say resistance is from the therapist? The reason is that the patient comes to test the therapist—the patient comes to see whether you want—whether you doubt your own position or not—your own position meaning that same time of yours—whether you doubt—want to exit it or not. That is when if the patient realizes that this person, as if, wants to understand something from my time—from my realm.

In much simpler terms, the patient comes to see whether you have this possibility of human relationship or not. If they realize you have the possibility of human relationship, they will certainly act very differently with you until they reach the conclusion that no—this one wants to teach me things, or wants to say things, or wants to treat me. If the patient reaches the conclusion that you want to treat them, that is when you exit human relationship—a very, very artificial relationship forms—which is the same example of artificial human relationship with their dead.

Well, our session is sufficient up to here.

Question:
I wanted to ask if it's possible

Dr. Rabiei's Association:
Our session is over.