This article develops the discussion initiated by the Gabriel Tupinambá’s Desire of Psychoanalysis, which needs to be supplemented by a clarification and revision of the attitude established in Lacanist discourse towards other disciplines and domains — first of all, science and politics. The position of psychoanalysis in relation to them appears to the author to be problematic and inconsistent with the theoretical level of psychoanalysis itself. In other words, in the interaction with other areas, the analysis feels much less confident than in the clinic and in working with its own concepts. The author hypothesizes why, among other disciplines, psychoanalysis invariably finds itself in this position. Following Tupinamba, it is argued that the main causal factor is the specific topology of the unconscious, which was established by Sigmund Freud and further developed by Jacques Lacan. In the clinic, in conversation with the general public, in dialogue with other disciplines, in each of these dimensions of psychoanalysis’s existence this topology is triggered and generates its effects, for which psychoanalysis eventually has to pay the price in its own territory. The inherent form of the axiomatic topology gives psychoanalysis certain advantages, but today it is time to state that psychoanalysis can no longer exploit its resources and must radically reconsider it and the long-term strategic problems related to it. The positions from which this revision is tentatively proposed are intended to mark and interpret the current crisis of the psychoanalytic community.