Text and Audio of Session Nine from the Series of Free Association Sessions

Session Date: December 20, 2025

First Question

In some mornings when I browse social media, I see content that you had mentioned in the previous session. One of these posts was about a celebrity who got into a debate with someone positioned as a whistleblower or critic. It seemed more like they were attacking each other than engaging in criticism. When I listened to the whistleblower or critic's statements, a similarity you mentioned revealed itself: that those who are in opposition often have a very performative, display-like enmity. The similarity that person had to the celebrity was clearly evident in his words and ideals; it was as if he was himself, similar to himself, only he was attacking himself because he was confronting that part of himself he had not faced.

My question is: For someone like me, who as a third party sees these two people, is it ethical to take the position of an analyst and talk about them? Or, since they themselves have not wished to be criticized or analyzed, should one not do this?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

Here we are talking about confrontation and critique. There is a connection between the critic, the observer, and the witness. That is, at the peak of critique, these three become intertwined. Now, when a confrontation, whether real or apparent, especially apparent, takes shape, the person who is the third party, if they form a triangle, is very different from when they critique from the position of that same observer, witness, and critic.

This also applies in the clinical space. A person in the position of a patient gives you information, makes associations, about a confrontation, which is usually the case. If this confrontation does not exist, they cannot speak. That is, a confrontation must take shape for them to be able to speak. Speaking, in many instances, only makes sense in a state of confrontation. It's as if until you find an enmity, though it might not be called enmity, but until you find an opposing pole, you cannot speak. When a person in the position of a patient speaks and associates in this way, they also summon you, they want to form a triangle.

Forming a triangle becomes problematic when you do not have that position of critic, observer, and witness. Because someone who has it does not fall into this trap. But someone who is not in that position, only plays the role of such a position, whether in the therapeutic space or outside of it, comes and forms a triangle. When you fall into the triangle, you no longer have subjectivity; that is, you have fallen into a game where you have no distance to see what the story is and be able to speak there.

Now the question that arises is: What is the difference between someone who falls into the triangle and someone who is in the position of an observer? Someone who is in the position of an observer constantly gives this information: "Look, I am an independent individual and I am a witness or observer, and you cannot involve me in your game." That is, they constantly remind of their independence and distinction. It is then that the person, when they cannot form this triangle, that competition, that jealousy, that confrontation, loses its meaning.

Those same two individuals in the virtual space, if the third person, who is the audience, does not enter, how much do you think this confrontation makes sense?

That is, that confrontation makes sense when that third person enters: comes to comment, give feedback, take sides. It is even possible that the preference of the person in the confrontation is to consider that observer, the one in the position of the observer, as their own enemy; that is, to become one with their opposing pole, but not be an observer, not be a witness, not be a critic. So the person you mention aims to involve you in their game so that the confrontation makes sense.

It is the same in the political space: a leader, the head of a country comes and speaks, but more important than their speech is what the observers say, what the witnesses say, and that feedback is very important. They think they have achieved their goal when they involve that observer in the game. If they think that observer hasn't taken the bait, the confrontation might even dissolve. So the confrontation makes sense only as long as that third person enters the game.

It is the same in the educational space. In the educational space, you also see confrontations that take shape, maybe between father and mother, maybe between children, and then, they are definitely looking to involve the third person in the game. If the third person does not enter, that confrontation dissolves. Children who fight with each other have a challenge to get the parents involved. If they get involved, the fight continues every day, but if they don't, they might scuffle, but they also quickly enter a stage of dialogue and interaction.

Of course, this topic and issue is also connected to the Oedipus triangle and its complexities, but this much is sufficient for now.

Second Question

When exactly does law turn into ritual? And considering that you talked about confrontation, how do agency and passivity affect this process? That is, the transformation of law into ritual.

Dr. Rabiei's Association

This is an important question. It can be answered in several ways. Look, it is not that something is legal and then turns into ritual. Let's look at this a bit more fundamentally. There is a time when law is the product of dialogue, law is the product of interaction. There is a time when law is the product of patricide. When law is the product of patricide, it more often takes the form of ritual. This matter even connects to the topic of the totem: the sons kill the father. Now, how I say this differs in the myths and history of various nations; for example, the sons of Cronus killed the father or actually turned him into an object or non-human. And based on those events that happened, now I won't go into the details, they were afflicted with a feeling of guilt. This feeling of guilt, of course, is not very pure, there was also fear and many other things; for example, fearing that this calamity would befall them as well. Zeus was much more powerful than all the other brothers, he was kind of the successor of Cronus. And what happened was that they formed some rules so that patricide would not happen again. But because these rules were the product of a patricide and the product of a feeling of guilt, fear, and many such items, it caused those rules to turn into ritual.

There is a time when you create rules out of love, like what is happening right now between you and me. If this relationship is based on love, affection, and passion, gradually, as if this relationship, rules take shape within it; for example, observing question and answer, observing time, observing the rights of others, and a set of other rules. For instance, here one rule is that one person asks a question, then cannot ask again unless others have no questions. This is a rule. You are gradually learning this and because there is no coercion here, it is based on interest, or passion and curiosity for learning, this rule is very different from the rule I mentioned.

So when a rule finds a ritual form, meaning it performs a set of manners and rules, but it is superficial. That is, if you empty it of force, coercion, fear, and many such items, that rule might dissolve. But there is a time when it's not like that, you do something out of love and affection; like a person who prays out of love and affection, compared to someone who prays out of fear or reward (paradise and promises made for paradise); it's very different.

[Questioner]: So it is tied to ethics?

Yes, the same Moral and Ethic that are discussed. In the realm of psychoanalysis it is like this: Ethic is that ethics which is based on love and affection and is tied to the rules we talked about. But Moral is based on that same feeling of guilt, fear, and such items. Presumably, if this fear, these factors that cause a person to observe a rule or ethic are removed, it loses its function. As you see even in today's world; many ethics are the product of patricide. That is, rules have been created and organs and organizations like human rights and many such items have been formed in order to protect these ethical principles. But you see that those countries that are more powerful, trample many of these principles underfoot. Why? Because the items that caused them to observe these ethical principles are the same fear and feeling of guilt, although it can be very complex too; that is, there can be many other factors, I mentioned a few of them.

Many of the ethics that are dominant in today's world and you see, are Moral rather than Ethic.

There is another difference between them: Moral is that ethical matter that is created overnight, now don't look at overnight too linearly, it might be several nights. But that Ethic is the product of human evolution and its time is much different and presumably more stable. People who, based on that human evolution, have become equipped with a set of ethical principles, are willing to have their heads cut off but not trample those ethical principles underfoot. There are many examples: from Socrates to Suhrawardi, to Antigone and Hallaj... Even now there are people who, they consider the probability that they might be eliminated, but do not trample underfoot the ethics and rules they adhere to.

Third Question

What connection can there be between a feeling of misery and obsession? I have a client, he has washing obsession. And he says I am very miserable. I said: Why do you feel miserable? He said: Well, because for example my peers are married, have higher education, I don't know, are beautiful, get attention, but well I am very miserable. That is, he has this feeling of misery a lot. He was also a very obedient child in childhood, whatever anyone said to him, he listened and today he has developed such an obsession, washing obsession. For me it is very interesting how the feeling of misery is linked to his obsession?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

The connection of your question to the previous question is here: To the extent that a person evolves based on that same process of human evolution, they have agency and at the same time in relation to themselves and the outside world, this agency is clear. The actions they do because they are out of love and affection and they themselves cause many events and productions, in fact they themselves are the agent of occurrence, here the person has a pleasant feeling and also has no need for ritual. But there is a time when it's not like that: the opposite person is someone who in relation to themselves and the outside world has no agency, because they have no agency. As a result, they need ritual. Ritual is the form or other side of the same obsession. Now ritual is a more colloquial term and is a term used in other fields of science as well, but well obsession is the specialized word and term.

One of the implications of obsession is to constantly tell the person: You exist, you are alive. Inside the obsessive person, this voice exists: You are dead, you have no agency, you have no existence, you are not human. So you get a feeling of deadness and misery, you must resort to rituals and various functions to give you this feeling that you are alive.

Many of these rituals and obsessions that exist now in various fields, like religious fields, and even in scientific fields are of this type. Many of the actions done in the virtual space are ritual. You as a person come every day and say things, do things that everyone is doing, you do this every day so that maybe this doing gives you a feeling that yes you are alive. But this feeling is not very stable either. Because of this, they deeply feel miserable. What is the feeling of misery? It is the same deadness. When they say obsession is stuck between being dead or alive, this is it. The fundamental question of obsessions is: Am I alive or dead? And that deadness prevails, meaning the answer they mostly get is that you are dead. Because of this, obsessions feel a lot of deadness and misery.

Fourth Question

That some people come on Instagram, as you say every day the person posts, well you say it's a state of ritual. Then in your opinion, isn't this person in the position of a questioner or hysteric rather than being obsessive?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

The difference between a hysteric and an obsessive is exactly at this point: that the hysteric's presence exists, that is, they have existence, although they do not attend to their own existence, their existence is more for the benefit of others than for their own benefit, that is, for the benefit of society. They come and precisely put their finger on the gaps and points that no one sees. As a result, the hysteric's speech, on the contrary, is new speech. When Freud conducted his first studies on hysterics, hysterics had presented symptoms that the medicine of that day could not answer.

The hysteric is not such that they remain stable and constant in their initial form; they are constantly changing.

So hysterics, on the contrary, show deficiencies, but they show the gaps of others. Of course they also show their own lacks, but they themselves cannot see it, unless another hysteric comes and gives them feedback.

So, you see that hysterics have new things to say. In fact, if there were no hysterics, evolution in sciences and various fields would not occur.

But what about obsession? The obsessive's work is repetitive. They might bring your words and tell them to you in a language, in a form, and with other manners, putting a few tunes and flowers and nightingales next to it to deceive people or themselves. But what happens is that both they themselves know, and others know. At the same time, both they themselves and others want this game to continue. As a result, this person and their audience deeply feel misery and deadness and it doesn't last long either: they do something for a while, now they get tired, they go and do another thing with another specific manner.

Questioner

I think exactly my question was what is the difference between the agency and passivity of hysteric and obsessive?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

Which I talked about.

Fifth Question

Considering that first question I asked, it seems the hysteric falls into that triangle?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

The obsessive completely gets stuck in that triangle, the hysteric also enters that triangle but keeps distance from those confrontations.

If the hysteric themself is also a side, they show the deficiencies of the other two poles. They don't let this game, that if a group wants to be in sleep, their sleep be too pleasant. That is, they create disturbance for that sleep, they create interference. Look at the political space, a group likes to be in these confrontations and have no interest at all in being reminded of the deficiencies of that political space. Even if you tell them they don't listen, they simply don't like you coming to find fault, criticize, or reflect their gaps to them.

But if you came and placed yourself in the triangle, constantly reflected these deficiencies, faults, flaws, but you yourself are also part of that space, you know, you see you are, that is, you kind of want this game to continue, you just want it to constantly evolve, be reformed.

But there is a time when you see the person is beyond that game, the same psychoanalytic discourse. Well, an example is when during the French Revolution, a group came and told Lacan that you don't want to support the protesters and against that ruler who was there, he said; eventually you will get what you want, but another dictatorial or master discourse, even more radical than the previous one, will replace it. So you see the person criticizes but does not enter the game. That is, the psychoanalyst is outside this story, says you will eventually put that person aside, meaning that person you are after and you create a revolution. But the person you replace, don't think they will be a very reformist person, they will be more radical than the previous one, more radical in terms of the master discourse actually.

But there is a time when the person is a protester, criticizes but cannot see themselves separate and outside of this story. They simply do not consider any existence for themselves outside this triangle. In the hysterical discourse it is exactly like this: the person is horrified, afraid of being placed in a position that is outside this triangle. So the triangle you are talking about, the hysteric is in this triangle, but it is very different from a person who is obsessive. The obsessive might not even distinguish themselves. The hysteric distinguishes but because they don't want to work on themselves, they actually cannot be in a state outside this triangle or be in its imagination.

Sixth Question

I have a question that maybe doesn't have much connection with the previous questions now. Regarding some people we interact with and see that in some parts of their life, parts of life they talk about, they always use the plural pronoun; for example they say: We, we should have done this. Especially when they are talking about regrets and things they should have done and didn't and mistakes they made, and when I bring up why you always use the pronoun "we", we see that they actually have no awareness regarding it. It's as if they use it unconsciously. And the question they ask they say: In your opinion why do I talk like this?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

What happens that people, regarding some parts of their life use the plural pronoun, regarding some they don't. Now what about using these plural or personal pronouns or even shifting their use?

These can have various implications.

Presumably also until the person themself does not associate about it, it is not clear what the "we" they are talking about is, what its story is. Or consider a person on the autistic spectrum who might use "you" instead of "I", well these have various implications and also until the person looks at it in first person, it is not clear. That is, as long as the person is speaking in plural or even shifting pronouns, it's as if they are talking about someone else. But when you come and speak in first person, even temporally your time becomes more limited to "present", it is very different and here you are the narrator of yourself.

When you see a person uses "we" instead of "I", probably it brings them a lot of benefit and advantage. First of all, they want to find a partner for the responsibility or those things that now pertain to themselves. If we want to relate this topic to the previous questions, the same state where you constantly want to find confrontation, the appearance of confrontation is such that it has a state of enmity or creates a state of opposition, but its reality is that you want to find a partner, find an accomplice or find a partner for those things attributed to you.

So when you use "we" or use third person verbs or even use "you" instead of "I", the reason is that if you become distinct, find a distinct personality, in that there is evolution, there is change, there is independence. If you are like this, you enter human evolution which demands many changes. I also talked about this in a class, gave an example, said: A mother who constantly instigates fights in family interactions or instigates various confrontations, one of its causes is that if that distinction, that "I", that individuality, that personal identity wants to rise, maybe even that family structure falls apart.

For example, look inside many of these traditional families, there might be an intelligent person, maybe that family will kick out the father of that family, because that intelligent, talented, capable person cannot use them, cannot be an independent and distinct person, cannot give weight to many of their loves and affections and curiosities and those needs. As a result, instead of giving weight to these, this person must create confrontation, must create "we", must create third person, must create various games so what happens? So that precisely that individuality does not take shape.

Many times family fights, for the sake of creating final disorder for the family is not, that is, its goal is not dissolution, its goal is preservation. Because of this you see families that scuffle a lot with each other, fight, last longer than families that are very calm and silent. Its appearance is such that these families that fight, their goal is not to preserve the family, but their goal is to preserve the family based on what? Based on that if these members don't want to use this colloquial term "third person" or shifting pronouns and verbs, they must leave the family, must attend to many of their passions that at least disrupt the old and traditional form of the family, unless a revolution actually occurs in the family. As happens in macro structures as well, there a revolution occurs in the whole structure, and allows individuality which is very different from its traditional state. But if a revolution occurs in one person, the structure cannot bear it, so that one person presumably must stay but spend their energy on peripheries, create a lot of fights and stories for the family and not necessarily is their goal to break up the family. Because there is no other way.

The topic got a bit complex!

Regarding autism, a lot can be talked about why they shift verbs and pronouns, there the space is different and a lot can be associated about it but for now I'll suffice with this.

Seventh Question

Human children, when they start talking and haven't yet gained that independence and actually don't have the necessary knowledge about themselves, talk about themselves with the third person pronoun; they don't say "hug me" but say "hug him". Does that also come from the same association? Is it also like that?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

If you imagine language as a living human entity and look at it evolutionarily, its evolution is based on experiences, that is, in the goings and comings and interactions that occur. It is not that it is created in a vacuum and all at once. It happens based on some rules. Just as you see evolution in language, it is the same in the human child. To the extent that they evolve physically, evolution occurs in speech and vice versa, their body conforms to their speech. That is, if a child does not become physically independent, their speech does not become independent either.

As is evident in this proverb; until your hand hasn't gone into your own pocket, don't say me me me so much. Why do they say this? Because it refers to the congruence of body (action) and speech.

So if you see that a child uses these verbs and pronouns shiftingly, one of its reasons is that they still don't have that readiness physically. Now it's not necessarily their pronunciation, maybe they can say "give this to me" or "put this on me". But as I told you, both psychologically and physically the person must be on their own feet, have relative independence, at least meet their own basic needs to be able to use words congruent with that.

A child who still cannot put on their own clothes, that is, it is more appropriate for them to say "put on the clothes" than to say "I want to put on my clothes" or "I put on my clothes". Because that seeing, the senses are congruent with words. If these are not congruent, speech also has problems. Testing it is free: you talk for a while, record it and then listen. When you listen you see that gradually your way of talking also changes. That is, a connection is being created between this hearing and the word. It's the same there: words, sentences, their evolutionary course is congruent with the evolutionary course of the body.

A body can do many things, but evolutionarily in speech it doesn't exist yet. But even there if you pay attention you see that that body is apparently correct in evolution, but it doesn't have the necessary complexity, that is, the intelligence and senses that should be in those actions are not there. But when speech evolves congruent with the body, its bodily signs function more complexly.

Saying that autistics do not have complete evolution only in terms of speech is not correct and it is the same in terms of body: you see they have repetition in speech, their body has repetition, their voice has repetition, there is a rigidity in their body. Now you work on their body for a while, you see evolution also occurs in their speech. Because of this, if you are working physically, you must also work congruently with it in terms of speech. The reverse is also true.

You cannot say I specifically do treatment work on speech and psyche and have nothing to do with the person's body. Because these two are not independent of each other, if you see in treatment work, changes have dimensions beyond the psyche, for example exercise enters the person's life, their physical activity increases, that is, agency is spreading to the body. If this happens in other domains like spiritual and ethical dimensions as well you can become "ghor" of your work which is different from becoming proud, what does becoming "ghor" mean? It means you are doing a job correctly. Otherwise even if a person comes every day to praise you, say a revolution has occurred in me and every day also bring you lots of gifts and various things and encourage you (although receiving these also has its own stories which are outside the discussion), it does not indicate therapeutic evolution. If you see these are happening but in those actions, their bodily behavior does not change, that is, one leg of the treatment is limping. Maybe one of its implications is precisely that the person is coming to say I am cured so that real changes don't occur.

If you see that a person linguistically from the very beginning is having rapid evolution but is not evolving physically, you should doubt this evolution. I won't name names, but probably for you all a boy will be associated who had various programs from public media as a children's program host, was very glib and talked like adults but had no physical evolution. This was strange, this was not a source of pride, this was a symptom. But well as I said sometimes this game is so pleasant that people don't want to wake up. There is also no one to come and say that hey this has a problem, why don't you see this problem. Why should it be like this? Or like the current dominant medical and psychiatric space, their only job is to do drug work or a group do medical intervention work without paying attention that well a large part of these issues is psychological. And the reverse also applies: psychologists who claim and think that with psychological work they can create a revolution in a few days and there is no need for any other work either.

Eighth Question

Now we don't have much time either. But in that imaginary confrontation, meaning in that confrontation you said if it is imaginary and the person with their mother, because I had a case today and they identify, are they still forming Oedipus? That is, triangle formation is happening?

Dr. Rabiei's Association

Oedipus is a very extensive and complex topic and time does not allow me to talk about it. Just consider this that Oedipus means the formation of a triangle. So if there is a two-person relationship between mother and child, this is not Oedipus at all. As it is with psychotics as well, that is, the third person does not find a way into the two-person relationship at all. Of course, not letting them in doesn't mean it doesn't exist: there is also rule there, but a rule that the two have created, not a rule that also considers the third person.

So the state that exists between child and mother, they rely on a third thing, but that third thing they themselves have built only as two. Because of this, the psychotic also has rule but a rule to which only they and their mother, or the person in the position of their mother, are faithful. But the third person, now consider the father, comes and cuts this relationship and says look, beyond your two-person rule there is another rule that you must also consider. For example, you might tell the mother get up and go cook food, or get up and go to your work. This means separating these two, meaning this two-person rule is crossed out. Crossed out doesn't mean it is completely denied, because if it is denied it becomes problematic.

For the human evolution of a person, it is necessary for the subject to exit the two-person relationship, but for evolution in this form it is not sufficient, the discussion of that is separate and outside the time of this session.

 

Listen to the related audio file at the Telegram address of Free Association;

https://t.me/free_associationpsycho