{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011045029736618521, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008496176720475786, 'mean_word_length': 5.437158469945355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The work of the psychoanalyst in the field of psychosis1

Psychosis questions the foundations of psychoanalytic theory and challenges our ultimate convictions about psychic functioning. Using her clinical practice, the author explores the foundations of representation and underscores the central position of sensoriality in constituting a representation. Psychoanalytical work with a psychotic subject requires a certain sharing of the psychotic experience which puts the analyst in touch with raw material grasped as a fragment of sensoriality that must consequently be shaped and figured so that the subject's representational activity can resume. The author thus uses the Freudian notion of figuration to specify this ‘raw material’ and its sensory texture. She then refers to Aulagnier's pictograms as a way of thinking about sensoriality under the sign of displeasure and pain rather than pleasure. In the light of this theoretical development, the author re‐examines the opening excerpts from her clinical cases to come up with a practice of interpretation as figuration that allows jointly for the shaping of the raw material and the identifying import of this shaping.