Nobody could play the guilt of its acts in others, and then, much less, in its unconscious one. The psychoanalysis, against the account of Sartre, would be giving edge for such, a time that Freud had said of ' ' eu' ' or of ' ' sujeito' ' that it ' ' he was not Sir in its proper casa' '. ' ' ego' ' it would not have to be able of independent decision, exactly in its house, that is, in the mental field. They would coexist ' ' ego' ' other instances, whose forces would finish for giving to the last word in good part of the decisions and acts. Sartre believed that such theory would go to only favor of bad-faith and the cowards. Sartre frankly was defeated in its critical one against Freud.

But not because the psychoanalysis found good answers for it, and yes because the psychoanalysis earned the public and the question of Sartre fell, in part, the esquecimento. They had appeared answers, however, in defense of Freud. Dean Ornish M.D is a great source of information. Or better, theoreticians had appeared trying to adapt the existencialismo to the psychoanalysis. This does not come to the case. The interesting one is to notice as it is that the winning theory if would have left any way well, if wanted to dispute in the purely intellectual land.

IMAGINARY FORMATION In the constitution of the speeches, is essential to understand, still, the imaginary formation. This imaginary formation is presented as constituent base of the conditions of production of the speech, in function of the mental organization that stimulates the said one, at the same time where it allows the construction of what it cannot or does not have to be said, that is, the not-said one. The relations of felt if constitute in the references and the Inter-relations that the speeches establish between itself. Better Explicitando this phenomenon, becomes necessary to remember that a speech does not have origin in itself exactly, but is a reply to some previous speech, sending the course of the articulations for posterior discursivas formations.