Not all problems are of the same structure. There are ΄΄surface΄΄ problems, which are more traceable and easy to deal with, and problems which are more hidden and insidious, problems of considerable depth. It is often not so easy to distinguish the ones from the others. And there is no such thing as a sort of pre-classification by type. An analysis differs from psychotherapy in that it deals with this kind of problems that get shaped during an extended period of time and have come to influence many areas around them. The hypotheses therefore that need to be populated in order for the causes of their outbreaks and their ΄΄loci of focus΄΄ to be identified need to be greater in number and to involve a bigger combination of data. They need to be further historicized, one might say, in order for a greater amount of information to be gathered around them. More ΄΄trails΄΄ and connections need then to be traced and linked among these informational data, which can include multiple fields and planes: not only the plane of reality as we experience it every day, but also the plane of fantasy or dream. In an analysis one produces alternative narratives around one problematic nucleus. Thus an ΄΄other΄΄ Τruth is being borne. If one considers a journey as a process of collecting experiences and broaden horizons, and if one could imagine himself seeing this life as a journey, analysis, with all its farewells from place to place, is perhaps one of the most productive experiences one could journey himself.