Text and Audio of Session 9: Psychology of Crisis
Session Date: December 16, 2025
Mehdi Rabiei[1]
Question 1:
This feeling we have now—the one we fight for, which greatly influences our decisions and directs us toward a specific path—is this inner feeling pure and conscious? Or is it stemming from old wounds and childhood complexes? Where does this feeling come from, and how can we determine whether the current need of myself or my client, which pulls them in this direction, originates from a pure need or from a past wound?
For instance, is our goal—which tempts us at this age to take an exam and get accepted into a Ph.D. program—a pure need for us, or is it the result of an old background and a wound?
Dr. Rabiei's Association:
The discussion of Need, Desire, and Demand is a triad that is addressed in various fields, including psychoanalysis, anthropology, and philosophy, in different forms. Need is often attributed more to the body, while Desire and Demand are linked to the psyche and structures like speech. However, separating these three in practice is almost impossible, except at the level of definition and speech. For example, one cannot definitively say that your presence here is solely due to curiosity and a search for truth, or that it is a response to past knots and deficiencies, such as compensating for certain issues, trying to compare oneself with others, or seeking superiority over them. These comparisons can be made both by the individual themselves and by others. Differentiating these motivations is difficult. This is why in the psychoanalytic space, the subject talks about themselves: first to determine the share of each of these components, and then to clarify the interaction between them.
Someone who comes to psychoanalysis is not meant to discard those knots and issues—even those that seem negative—but to understand them: how much they have played a role in shaping you, how much they have been effective in your presence here, and how much they are related to your needs.
Now you might ask: If that's the case, then what is the problem? The problem arises when you want to ignore or deny the existence of a part of these components. For example, saying, "I came here only out of curiosity," which is actually a kind of denial of a part of yourself. Or saying, "I had a very good family," or "I don't compare at all."
So, it depends on how helpful the arguments and reasons you provide are, or conversely, how much they waste your energy. For example, in this very class: one person directs their energy toward their work and does not deny many realities; that is, they also consider the pains, sufferings, and hurts, and if necessary, talks about them without much distortion. But another person might spend their energy on peripheral issues: for instance, being absent, disparaging friends or classmates, or speaking against the professor or the educational system. In this case, this behavior might be a cover for ignoring a part of their personal deficiencies and history. Therefore, a tendency toward peripheral issues in such conditions seems necessary.
Thus, ignoring a part of the past—which might be part of those very demands and desires—not only doesn't help but also creates interference in the path of what you call "curiosity" or "the desire to understand."
However, one can also imagine a time and situation where your past helps you to try harder and reach your curiosity. That is, a cooperation and interaction emerges between your psychological history with all its pains and sufferings, and your needs such as curiosity, comprehension, understanding, and the satisfaction of many other needs.
Of course, focusing on peripherals can have other reasons as well. Like a mother who is very intelligent and curious but is trapped in a traditional, closed family structure. If she wants to address her needs, she might need to leave that space and pursue lessons, education, and study. So, should this person not work? Should she not prioritize her needs? It's possible that all this person's work is meddling in others' lives or creating peripherals for the family. Why? Because that energy must be spent on peripherals, spent on those desires and demands that are distant from real needs.
So, if you are not working, if you are pursuing peripherals, if you are seeking components other than your needs, you must see what the function of this behavior is and what its reasons are. Part of it might be compensation for some sufferings, pains, and conditions. Another part might be that if you address your needs, the structure of your life would transform, and you might not even be present in this class at all.
Now let's address this question: What kind of person does someone become who reaches their needs, and how does someone who is completely in the service of psychological demands act?
Honest confrontation with one's history can have several states and functions. Sometimes you seek therapy and psychoanalysis to face your personal and historical issues and not let them hinder your work and life. But sometimes, talking about these issues has another function. Like those who engage in self-disclosure on virtual spaces and social media. There, this act actually hinders their real needs. Why? Because they usually resort to an "other" that does not necessarily align with the reality of their needs. If one of your needs is curiosity—meaning to the extent of the intelligence, talent, and ability you have—what do you naturally do? You work. You work to answer that need. Here, if, for example, you are to criticize your professor, you see both positive and negative aspects because criticism takes on a research-like quality. Therefore, differentiating these cases from each other is a very difficult task. We must see what the goal is and where you are doing this. Also, the philosophy that has given rise to your question is very important. Sometimes your philosophy is to understand the connection between these components, and sometimes the philosophy is merely to have said something.
Questioner:
I have searched and studied a lot and have reached a conclusion—perhaps my personal conclusion, which might be wrong for many: Can needs be evaluated through the feelings we experience after making a decision or after our desire is fulfilled? For example, I do something, I make a purchase. After this purchase, I feel a lot of satisfaction and peace. Can this be attributed to me having acted based on awareness and my real self? Or not, like the example we discussed last week about buying Coca-Cola under the influence of subliminal stimulation? Can we judge needs based on feelings after a decision?
Dr. Rabiei's Association:
Feelings do not speak by themselves unless they are turned into speech. When these three components (Demand, Desire, and Need) are connected with each other, the individual can speak. That is, when they say "I am angry," they can say what this anger is. But in a person where these three are not connected, when something is about to go wrong, if you ask them why they are angry, they cannot speak and may even become angrier and act aggressively. However, when these three components are connected and there is also a link between the psyche and the body, the individual can talk about a feeling or emotion; they can say, "I am upset because of this," or "I am happy because of that." And these emotions become multi-dimensional. Their feelings have a lot to say; they understand that it is one feeling, but within it contains other feelings as well. And ultimately, the emotion provides a solution. Why? Because you know what the subject is. What is your problem with? What is your feeling? What do you have a problem with? What don't you have a problem with? Where is the gap? Where is the deficiency? Where is the strength? Therefore, a connection is precisely established between emotion and speech as well.
But when you see there is no connection between these, that is where there is a lot of distortion. That is where you cannot determine whether a real need is at play here or the individual's history.
Another situation: Your child is extremely distressed, and you are left there and may experience various emotions. This child could be a teenager or younger. When you experience emotion, you might see what these emotions want to say. For example, you might become afraid and say, "Was I a good father? A bad father?" and "What if there is a problem, what if something bad happens." All these thoughts come to mind. Then a question mark also appears within these emotions; that is, curiosity also emerges and shows its need. Amidst the emotions, you tell yourself, "Let me ask." You say, "What's going on? What's the story?" And here, because you see these, you both express your own distress, observe your own anger—it might even cross your mind: "Why should they be upset, why should they be angry, when they have everything..." But within these emotions, verbal content is also observed; that is, a connection between emotion and speech and a question mark is created. You say, "Well, let me ask: Dear child, what is the matter? Do you want to talk about it?" Or you even wait; that is, you don't react quickly. But if there is no connection between speech and emotion, you react quickly, you might become aggressive: "Go, go to your room! There's no need for you to be angry at all."
But when you see the content of the emotions and the question mark that you must ask what the reality is, that question mark is the need itself.
Why do I emphasize questioning so much in this class? Because I want you to see the question, to see your need within yourself—fundamentally, why are you here? Then you ask yourself: What is the story?
The other party, who is your child, turns that anger, fear, rage, and hatred into speech. That is, within themselves, they return to themselves: "Well, why am I upset? Why am I angry?" They might turn back and say, "You are not good parents." Here again, you might get upset. That is, when you pause and return to yourself, you then learn that being human is exactly this: waiting, pausing, and thinking. And it is the same in the therapeutic process.
In the clinical realm, when transference takes shape, the therapist might also become distressed, but they wait, pause so that the real questions are raised, and they ask: "Well, tell me: when you say we are bad parents, why?"
Even here, your relationship might not lead to problem-solving, but it teaches the child to see: when you get angry, process it, pause, see what your questions are. This is very important. That is, if your client learns that when they become upset or angry, they should pause and think to move forward, it is enough.
Why in the clinical realm, especially in psychoanalysis, is it said not to answer so simply, not to provide a solution? So that the individual learns that finding a solution is not that simple. That is, the reason in psychoanalysis that you see the answer—even if sometimes the answer is present in your mind—but you say you must wait, why? So that they themselves learn that they must wait, pause to see the connection between speech and emotion, then the question becomes clear, they talk, and ultimately, maybe even problem-solving does not occur. But the individual is learning a process; they are learning a process of transformation.
This process of transformation that I speak of; the human you see here now, did they come into being overnight? Look at their transformation—if we consider that same evolutionary viewpoint, the human who has now become human has gone through a very long process. So how do you expect a child who is born to reach that human stage within five months? It is very strange to me that some of these therapeutic interventions claim: "We treat a person in four days." Worse is when they say: "I improve a person in one day." This is very strange and is not at all compatible with the process of human development.
The journey from birth to becoming a human is the same developmental process that occurred from animal to human. It is true that this transformation might be faster physically, but psychologically and in the connection between psyche and body, the same non-linear time must be traversed. This is why becoming human takes as long as the entire lifespan of an individual.
So if you take this as a benchmark, you then understand how to behave with another person, whether in an educational or therapeutic setting. For example, a child says: "Look, father, you did this behavior there. I am now examining it, I asked my friend: this didn't happen to him, why did it happen to me? What is the reason?" Here, the father might not have an answer, but just by listening, he teaches his child to hear this part of their life and not want to eliminate it, not try to hide this part of their demand, and to strike through the curiosity—that very question that has arisen is a connection between need and question.
But the opposite scenario: the father turns back and says: "It is what it is, it is what it is. Meaning you shouldn't question this anymore." Worse, the father turns back and starts talking about his own merits. This teaches the child that instead of seeing their weaknesses, from now on they should try to only show positive things. You see in academic or virtual spaces that some people, instead of working and living, constantly talk about their own merits. While there is no need to enumerate these, because what is truly a merit is usually recorded and documented. The primary need is always tied to work, not to slogans, not to belittling and destroying others. Unless enumerating them is itself a need; for example, I ask you: Sir, what is your degree? Where did you study? What have you done? In that situation, because the question is raised and its place exists, you answer, neither less nor more.
Questioner:
If I feel a lot of satisfaction from doing this work, endure hardships, and even enjoy these hardships because I am reaching the goal I want, or conversely: I cannot endure these hardships and constantly struggle with myself: "Why am I getting a Ph.D. at this age and position?" and with all these problems of work, home, project, distance, etc., can we not judge where this decision of mine originated from? I mean: Can you or I understand, based on the feeling of pleasure, satisfaction, or lack of pleasure and satisfaction, whether my decision was mature or immature, originated from my conscious or from my unconscious and wounded self?
Dr. Rabiei's Association:
My answer is: "You are in the right place where you are." It cannot be said that this is unrelated to your need. But the type of connection between this need, demand, and desire is important. One person might be sitting in your class and constantly say: "Why am I here? I am dissatisfied. My place should be better than here." Superficially, it seems they are talking about a capability, talent, and potential need, but in depth, they are also speaking about this demand that they do not want to reach that real need, because the way of dealing with self and others is problematic, unless both are verbalized in a realm like therapy or psychoanalysis to create a connection between them.
Or conversely, someone who always says: "I am very satisfied" but does nothing. Here, too, you are in the right place, but have you connected with your position? You might say every day: "I study at the best university."
Both states are correct in that they should be here, but have they connected with their position? How much of those potential needs of theirs do they employ? How much do they truly study? How much do they work? How much do they do something out of love, interest, and pleasure? You might work, but out of compulsion, fear, and many other factors that are more about desire—that is, demand and desire—those psychological issues that force you to do something. So you see why that satisfaction on one side and dissatisfaction on the other are not necessarily indicative of need in the precise sense of the word. But when a connection is established between these, then you might attend a space like group therapy and talk about your inner world. You give space to those parts of your being that might pertain to your dissatisfactions and satisfaction. Let's see what they have to say? Why does the person complain so much? Or why are they so satisfied? Sometimes satisfaction does not indicate real satisfaction but is performative or can have other implications. Due to the educational aspect of the class, we are forced to summarize the discussion. This does not mean that the words I say have exactly one specific meaning or that the individual must show all their dissatisfaction and satisfaction in the therapeutic space.
It is interesting to tell you: A psychologist who is also undergoing therapy means there is a connection between these three components because they both know they are in the right place and know they must also address their past and psychological life, meaning they both work and talk and associate in their own therapeutic space.
But if you see a psychologist who is solely in the position of teaching, advising, and preaching, constantly giving advice and goods to others in various spaces, even encouraging others to seek therapy, and apparently very satisfied with their job, but they do not dare to undergo therapy themselves even for one session, therapy for that psychologist is about addressing desire and demand so as not to interfere in their needs. So if someone is a psychologist, naturally they had to become one, but how they connect with psychology is very important.
So you see: Someone who complains and laments about their position, for example, a person who is married and constantly complains about why they are in this family, why they married this person—the issue is not that they are in the wrong place. The issue is that the type of connection they have established with this position is very important. If they connect with this situation, this connection may ultimately lead to separation from that space. They actually needed to connect to reach the conclusion that they must leave this space. So they are precisely in the right space. You see how much need is intertwined with love and work.
As I mentioned, a connection must be established between speech and feeling, between psyche and body, between demand, need, and desire for human transformation to occur.
Questioner:
It happens to me and almost everyone: A person makes a decision and feels a great sense of peace. This decision might be a purchase, a change in their own behavior, or a career decision, and after that, they become very calm. This feeling may not be told to anyone at all, but they have a deep sense of peace within themselves. And conversely: A person makes a decision, perhaps a progressive decision, perhaps a decision that wasn't to their detriment and even helped them, but every time they remember that decision, the peace they had disappears and they become anxious. My conclusion is: Where did those first cases originate? How is it that I make a decision that might be costly but gives me a great sense of peace, there is love in it, and it makes me feel satisfied? Or a decision that is very important but always makes me anxious as long as I think about it, even if other events have nothing to do with it, I might protest against it?
Dr. Rabiei's Association:
If within this feeling of pleasure, there is also the component of pain, suffering, and distress—like your own Ph.D. period if you truly want to work, you might find pleasure here, have joy, but there is also pain and suffering. What is that pain and suffering? One of the pains and sufferings is that you might not like some spaces, environmental demands might be high, there might be many challenges and distresses. So these are within it. You see these just as you see them in the case of your own history. Now if these are within the joy, satisfaction, etc., they have their place and constitute a part of your satisfaction, and it is very different from when your satisfaction does not consider these matters at all.
Let me give an example so you understand well: I myself, in the process of teaching, do not have much belief in some matters like attendance. I believe the individual should come with their own enthusiasm. But a question arises: Did attendance take shape arbitrarily? No, it did not form arbitrarily. It has a history, an experiential history that shows despite its superficial nature, it is better for it to exist. I have experienced this. Your numbers are few, but sometimes in a medical class, you see forty-fifty people sitting. They know I don't give much importance to attendance, but when attendance exists versus when it doesn't, their reaction is different. When attendance exists, they actually become more committed. Why? Because this serves as a symbol, a rule. Its content might not be accepted by both parties, but when a rule, even superficially, is established, it's as if you have considered a third person, an other, an observer. This is why, in my opinion, in family and marriage structures, traditions and customs should not be completely discarded, even if both parties do not agree with their content. When you completely discard traditions and customs, strange events occur, as if unconsciously a tendency for transgression and violation arises. This is why a part of the rule must remain in place. Why? Because this is perhaps the result of thousands of years of experience. So this question of whether satisfaction by itself can be a criterion or not, we must see what lies within that satisfaction? What is considered? If you also consider these rules, it is very different from when your satisfaction does not take these rules and contents into account at all. So remember that appearance is as necessary as many other matters. Often, people who come into psychoanalysis see that appearance is criticized and then think it shouldn't exist.
Recently, I saw an interview with Mr. Khodadad Azizi. He was talking about a topic during the World Cup elections and used very vulgar words and terms. In society and from mass media, such words should not be used. Why? Because this has a history, a background, and an experience whose existence must be preserved as a rule. The rule, not the content. It is true that everyone might have used these words in their privacy, but the issue is precisely that you observe the rules in public space. When they asked him why he used these words, he said: "Why are you pretending? You use these words too." But the issue is precisely that in private space you might be naked and see yourself, but in public space, it is not so. It is true that you might not agree with some contents or issues, but the existence of that rule is important. People's attack on this issue is not because of the speech itself, but because of the breaking of the rule and law. Breaking the law happens in two states. If you perform a psychoanalytic analysis on these reactions, it shows that the onslaught and attacks people carry out, they themselves might not even know. If you ask them: "Sir, why did you do this?" they say: "I have a problem with that word." But unconsciously, this reaction is to the violation of the rule and law. What does unconscious mean? The unconscious is the keeper of your history. If these rules were not useful to you, they wouldn't remain. So the unconscious says keep these rules because they are useful. This is why it is said the unconscious has a more real existence than the conscious.
You can see this issue in two states: one when a tense space is about to be created, meaning it might foretell that terrible events will occur in the future. Another foretelling might be that better rules and laws will be created. So sometimes a rule is broken to be reformed. If it is truly to be reformed, this is very good, a positive foretelling. But if this law-breaking and rule-breaking causes chaos, meaning you act based on your personal rule and another does the same, then chaos arises. The proverb "The dog doesn't recognize its owner" is applicable in such a tense space. Why are international structures and human rights criticized today? Because the rule is being broken. But rules that are broken cause selfishness, narcissism, and single-person standards or standards that only consider one's own country to take priority. Now if this deconstruction leads to the creation of stronger structures, that is very good, but unfortunately, I must say that the formation of stronger structures is not that easy and takes time. This is why it is said revolution is better if it occurs through reforms. Why? Because when a revolution occurs until another revolution replaces it, much chaos forms, and many are harmed. If you look at Western countries where no revolution has occurred for a long time. Why? Because reforms that form within those very structures create a better situation. This is why, in some respects, we see they are ahead of us because reforms have taken place and chaos has not delayed structural reforms. I do not mean that all revolutions are unnecessary, but I want to say that when a rule and structure are broken, a long time is needed for rules to form again that are better than before.
Now, let's bring this topic to the clinical space. In the clinical space, it is the same. Why is it said that from the very first session, rules must exist? Why must time, money, and the type of relationship be specified? Because these rules, even if the two parties do not believe in their content, their existence is necessary. Their symbolic existence is more important than their appearance. So often, you need to observe appearances; attendance in class must be done because if it is discarded, not only the rule itself but also the symbolic rule is undermined.
Final Question:
In psychoanalysis, an individual expresses their past to resolve it and get on with life. Does this resolution of the past occur only through talking about those same past pains and sufferings?
Dr. Rabiei's Association:
If we want to talk about this, various associations come to mind, but I want it to connect with previous discussions: First, when you decide to come for therapy, it means you are saying: "Where do I want to take a part of those issues, pains, sufferings, knots, and complexes of mine? To the therapy room." The symbolic meaning of your request is this: "I don't want these past issues, history, matters related to family, ancestors, culture, and my country to interfere in my life, work, love, and needs." So this decision of yours is a big and symbolic decision, especially if it is real. Sometimes you decide to come, but this decision is fake: Do you want to spend your father's money? Or do you want to come to prove that therapy doesn't work? But you have made a real decision when this decision is a shock, a trauma: "We want to shorten the hand of the past." Not in the sense of cutting it off, but you want to use it in the therapeutic space so that instead of hindering you, they serve you. That past of yours becomes art, becomes present in your work and relationships. If you can use it, it serves your profession.
So the first thing that exists, if your request is real, is that you channel it and bring it to the therapeutic space.
Second, when you disclose about your past, it is not just catharsis (emotional discharge). The point of disagreement between Freud and those like Breuer who performed catharsis was this. Breuer said it is enough for the individual to come and discharge, but Freud said this is not enough. That experience you have constructed, that fantasy and history you have created, is full of distortion and unreal matters, and this is what hinders. If matters are expressed as they were and the individual faces them, it is not problematic, but distortion is what creates the problem. For example, with your siblings, you have competition, envy, and many stories, many of which are unreal, and you repeat that unreal relationship with a classmate. So it's not just about catharsis. You come to talk about the story you have constructed. This does not mean from the very beginning you sit and fight with this story. First, you must hear the story to see that you have constructed this story. If we tell someone the story they have constructed and elaborated, they might not accept and say: "No, these really happened." But when they hear it, they gradually become ready to face those distortions and fabrications. This does not mean they discard them. On the contrary, there is a term in psychoanalysis called "sinthome." That is, what you had constructed with all those distortions was a symptom, and that's why it created problems and hindered. Now if you see and hear them and control where they want to hinder and bring them to the therapeutic space, you gradually start working and using them. This is where you find your own color and flavor. This is where the symptom transforms into a "sinthome," and ultimately, the style that remains becomes your lifestyle. Your lifestyle was something that previously wanted to be eliminated, censored, or destroyed; now, that same lifestyle becomes your style of loving, your lifestyle that you use. For example, if it is art, it becomes a specific painting style. If you are a psychologist, you become a specific psychology style that not only does not hinder but helps the science of psychology. And because it is a style, it is what you first asked: What does need mean? It becomes your specific lifestyle. You see how much a connection is created between need and that desire and longing with demand. Ultimately, the connection of these becomes "sinthome," meaning your specific lifestyle. That is where strange events occur. That is where even if you are in science, you might advance science a step, meaning it benefits others too, not just self-talk and self-laughter, but others also affirm you that your style is useful to others as well.
Well, our session is sufficient up to here.
The related audio file can be listened to on the Telegram address Free Association Psycho:
https://t.me/free_
[1] . Faculty member of the Psychology Department, clinical researcher in psychoanalysis and linguistics.
