However, if these phenomena are not gifts and other indications still compose this picture, not if it can consider it as a neurosis, therefore it is mentioned to another type of structure. Of this form, the analyst is taken to perceive of general form, the psychosis concept. Miller (2010) establishes that the fact to generalize the psychosis represents that Name-do-Father is inexistent. ' ' Name-do-Father is a predicate, always is a predicate. It is always a specific element among others that, for subject determined one, he functions as Name; ' (p.20).

To if affirming this idea, one becomes to extinguish the barrier between psychosis and neurosis. It is a representation similar to the fact of if affirming that all the people are insane people, resulting in the declaration of that all the individuals have its particular way to be delirious. Lacan writes on this in the year of 1978. Clearly that this is not the only form of classification, but of certain form, the clinic is accurately thus. You cannot function as psychoanalytic if she is not conscientious of that what knows, its world, is delirious fantasstico, we can say, but fantasstico means delirious exactly.

To be psychoanalytic is to know that its proper world, its proper fancy, its way to make sensible is delirious. This is the reason for which vocs they try to abandon it exactly to perceive the proper delirium of its patient, its way to make sensible. (MILLER, 2010, P. 20). Ahead of these arguments, it was objectified to answer to the following questioning: Which the main difficulties in becoming the diagnosis of an usual psychosis? One estimates that the absence of elementary phenomena (hallucinations, deliriums and others) can cause impediments in the diagnosis of the usual psychosis. This work for contributing for the advance of a scientific study was justified on the question of the diagnosis of the usual psychoses, a time that the existing research does not tell with clarity on such context.