[Interpretative method as a synthesis of explicative, teleologic and analogic models].

To establish the basis of the interpretative method is congruous with finding a solid basis--epistemologically speaking--to the analytic theory. This basis would be the means to transform this theory into a real science with its necessary adecuation among method, act and object of knowledge. It is only from a scientific stand that the psychoanalytic theory will be able to face successfully the reductionisms that menace it, be it the biologist-naturalism with its explanations of the psychic phenomena by means of mechanisms and biologic models or be it the speculative ideologies with their nucleus of technical praxis which make it impossible for the social-factic sciences to become real sciences. We propose as interpretative method the union of two models: the teleologic one which makes possible the appearance of intelligible, contingent and variable explanations between an antecedent and a consequent on one side, and on the other, the analogic model with its two moments: the comparative and the symbolic one. These moments makes possible the comparison and the union between antecedent and consequent baring in mind the "natural" ambiguity of the subject-object in question. The principal objective of the method--as a regulative idea in the Kantian sense--would be the search of univocity as regards the choice of one and only one sense from all the possible senses that "explain" the motive relationship or motive-end relationship in order to make the interpretation scientific. This status of scientificity should obey the rules of explanation: that the interpretations be derived effectively from the presupposed theory, that they really explain what they claim to explain, that they are not contradictory or contrary in the same ontologic level. We postulate that the synthesis of the two mentioned models, the teleologic-explanative and the analogic one allows us to find a possibility to make clear the "dark" sense of the noun interpretation and in this way the factibility of speaking of an interpretative method that develops the real concrete object by producing the formal and abstract one--which for us is the behaviour of the subject--. In this way the interpretations come to be teleological explanations overdetermined by an analogical relationship. This means that they produce the formal and abstract object -the method--which is in itself an intelligible, continguent and variable relationship between an antecedent and a consequent permitting in this way the emergence of a symbolic comparison to explain the real concrete. The symbolic explanations and comparisons are strictly derived from the presupposed theory, the theoretical body of psychoanalysis.