Objectives:
The subject of reflection is the supervision process. The intention of the article is not a clarification (Germ. die Erklärung) of the supervision process, but shedding light on (Germ. die Aufklärung) of its parties’ situation: of the patient, the therapist and the supervisor. The questions about supervision ethics will be discussed, based on own experience.

Methods:
The method of description is the existential analysis, of which we know from Karl Jaspers that it is an attempt to establish existential communication with the reality that we do not have direct access to.

Results:
As the clarification of the supervision relation is always done in mutual space : the one who establishes communication is inevitably a party of it, the outcome of the investigation is at the same time as uncertain as certain, meaning: biased . It cannot be generalized, but it can be a subject for one’s own, also biased, analysis.

Conclusions:
In the light of the experiences presented in the article, supervision turns out to be a place of intersection of the comprehensible (closed) with the incomprehensible (open). As such, it does not only consist of knowledge of what is learnable. If it is supposed to serve the patient, who submits him - or herself to the care of the therapist and supervisor, it should arouse metaphysical desires, the longing for what there is, but not for us anymore, or not yet, or never. Exercises in imagination are one of the paths on which we can meet the incomprehensible that we are.