With her comment, the author pays tribute to the above clinical theoretical paper in which Andreas Giannakoulas leaves us a testimony of his art of analysing a difficult patient. The au-thor emphasizes how Andreas dialogues with Winnicott and Green, accepting that the challenge of representability, on both sides of the repression, is one of the issues at stake when engaging in the contemporary psychoanalytic clinic.
There are also reflections on the double significance of the Negative - in its structuring and de-structuring dimensions - that emerges in the analysis of this patient. The clinician's careful attention to decoding the countertransference, starting from the somatic one in the Ne-gative area of these patients, stimulates the author to consider the clinical usefulness of diffe-rentiating between two meanings of collapse - one in the sense of collapse of the primary en-vironment - known not thought, and the other as a breakdown in which the ego implodes into the bodily self: two different clinical meanings, comparable to the two meanings with which Winnicott’s translator into Italian distinguishes the "collapse-collapse" from the breakdown term in current use in the Italian language.
Keywords: Narcolepsy, collapse, breakdown, the real-Negative, the unreal Positive, false rep-aration, use of the object