This article differentiates between two forms of interpretation: symbolic and imaginary. It is argued that an analytic interpretation always revisits a symbolic interpretation made by the subject, resulting in the subject also making an imaginary interpretation.. Furthermore, a psychoanalytic interpretation can only be of service to the analytic cure if the analyst makes a cut between the (revisiting of the symbolic) interpretation made by the analyst and the imaginary interpretation made by the analysand.
In this case study, the author illustrates important elements of the treatment of actual neurosis: 1. (Re-) Installation of the primary relation between the subject and the Other; 2. Symbolisation of the manifestations of the real of the drive; 3. Secondary elaboration and signification; and 4. Subject amplification.