[quality of the scan: poor, but readable]
Bulletin of the Association Freudian Cause in Normandy
SEPARATED FROM THE SCIENCE AND RELIGION: Psychoanalysis
Carte blanche, Jean-Louis Woerlé
Opening, Nicole Maisonneuve
Le triomphe of the religion 1
The Names of the Father, contemporary fiction, Yasmine Grasser
« Freud, about morality, is the weight correctly ", Marie-Hélène Doguet-Dziomba
The emergence of "das Ding", Serge Dziomba
Notes on the second conference in Brussels Lacan, Jose-Luis Garcia Castilian
About the "Address to Catholic", Hervé Desprez
The clinic and its concepts
I'm an artist?, Suzanne Hommel
Writing for the thread of life, Lydia Lemercier-Gemptel
Unknotting and foreclosure, Eric Blumel
Lacanian Fictions, Marie-Claude Lardeux-Majour
François Leguil et Mathilde Morisod Harari, Meeting 13.03.2012 : "Defense, Pretend "
During transcription ... ...
So here we are-X, 13 March and another audience, at another time than usual, we break our habits a little, I believe that this meeting today particularly, this is a cut against our traditions, if you can say it like that, this is our last, not, our tenth meeting, our penultimate meeting ...
Marlene Bellilos-Before-penultimate, there are two.
X He leaves two. Pre-penultimate.
MB-Yes. There is one with Marie-Hélène Brousse and then one with Eric and François Laurent, early July, 6 July, something like that.
X-Yes, early July, you announce it in time, we are now 13 March, it is not in the audience but it really is a great day because I told François Leguil I wanted there to be good weather for his journey Helvetic since you came to know other townships, among other Lucerne, Lucerne when the weather is really extraordinary, and I think this is better than expected, especially if we think that a month ago, it was less than fifteen, now almost twenty, so it's really a beautiful late winter.
So our meeting today, defense and pretend, I think that is the best match baroque these meetings so far, I said in the car when I planned these two texts, these concepts one beside the other, I had an idea that was very clear, really, there was a logic behind putting together this, these two elements, and I completely lost the sense, and I did not take notes, my mind is gone, I do not know what is the relationship between defense and pretend.
MB-Do you want me to ...
Then just X-, I count on you, it means that I start with a gap and see if you just close my gap or rather if you are going to deepen. Another unusual element today is that for the first time it is not from Sigmund and Jacques, but Anna. Is, because there was a much clearer since it is also a text atypical Anna Freud, it means it is an era that was his father's lifetime she wrote this work, she was the secretary of Freud, she was in close contact with him and direct his thoughts, she was already mature and they exchanged all the time. So if Anna Freud said that this book has been independently, obviously do not believe, hein. It is clear that this is the last Freud, Freud the aggression, the Freud anxiety, where all the elements are there the last Freud - although there were also elements of the Anna Freud future will turn to education and to pédagie, Perhaps it will interest us a little less, I let Mathilde, she prepared a surprise we will see how you will approach this text.
Then, the discourse that, a speech that would not be pretending it was Jacques Lacan 1971, Lacan also a mature, I put Anna Freud as if it was a mature Freud, Jacques Lacan and mature, in 1971 where the enjoyment was already an important place in his thought, it was after the four discourses, and there he introduced the semblance, the seeming contrast with the letter and the character.
Then there is a point where Lacan refers to the Latin persona, and there is also a reference to Marcel Mauss, I think he does not quote Marcel Mauss but obviously this is a text and Marcel Mauss Marcel Mauss on the person where Marcel Mauss discusses the Latin persona as a mask, a theatrical mask, a theater mask that is a kind of hypocrisy, removal of me, and simultaneously, paradoxically, that person also becomes characterizes closer topic. So there, I'll let you speak, I let Marlene also say a few words before, Mathilde Morisod, psychiatrist, you are responsible for Perinatology tell me exactly ...?
MM-I am a child psychiatrist, Head of Clinical maternity and néatologie, I am in liaison psychiatry.
That's X-. And you are also a member of ASREP. François also Leguil, psychiatrist, analyte member of the School of the Freudian Cause in Paris. We begin by Freud? Then ... then maybe Marlene.
MB-Yes but I just wanted to say, because I asked myself throughout the trip question - between Paris and Lausanne -, the issue of the joint conference, and in fact I obviously found, I found something Lacan, which is not bad, during which the dit: "The letter of Freud's work is a work written, but what she draws from his writings surrounds a veiled truth, obscure, which states that a report of this sexual, as it happens in any accomplissment, not supported, I s'assied, that this composition between enjoyment and pretend, called castration. "I'm not going to read the whole passage, just a little further he said XXX, as well as his psychopathology, phenomena that allow trips analyzed in ethnology, it remains true that what stands out everything as mentioned castration, we see what form? As always avoidance. "So it may actually join this notion of defense that will be raised by Mathilde Morisod.
But what I actually wanted to still say this Freud 1971, This seminar follows directly that the Side of Psychoanalysis, This is a seminar in which time stands between a trip to Japan, a radio, the publication of Writings, and Scilicet 2/3. It was an opportunity for Jacques Lacan to regain her memories of Chinese, to query the status of speech and writing. "The radio, tell-t-il, is the advent of a speech without the presence. There are. Writing, it is a advent of speech, Lacan asked to report the truth "which is true if I say I'm lying, because if I say I'm not lying, we doubt. To navigate, the figure would seem thunder, she waved, but we do not know what. "The seeming, as Lacan says, the semblance, it is a concept, actually it is a noun while ordinary we say "pretend", with an article would be an operator of the unconscious truth.
"From a speech", dit-yl, "A speech". It is therefore generally. "It is not mine", Lacan adds. The Previous Year, He has developed the four discourses: it is instead of pretending in the speech he will be talking about today. Semblance take the place of S1 in the master discourse, semblance of a speech ..., who would not pretend, but a discourse which posits that speech as I state it, is appearing.
They say not pretend what. Here. It will all be beautifully developed by François Leguil and Mathilde Morisod, we are delighted to hear: I leave the word.
Hi MM-, I thank Marlene Bellilos inviting me today in the seminar readings Freudian, to talk about the text of Anna Freud: The ego and its defense mechanisms, and I hope that my presentation will be at the height they have shown in me by offering me this year tonight.
Therefore, I intend to cut my presentation into two parts which I have summarized here the blackboard, therefore a first portion that will address the text itself, in highlighting concepts that I thought were important, but in a non-exhaustive, so as not to fall into a text explanation too academic and that might be daunting for you, and a second part where I try to talk about my Freudian and Lacanian me in their constructions, since the work of Anna Freud, I think he, is a manifesto for the rehabilitation of the instance of me, which will give it a prominent place in psychoanalysis.
So I'll start with the first part, This first part is called "Introduction and context of the work", so this article was published ...
MB-Slower is better ... ...
MM-So, this text, published in Vienna in 1936, develops a theory of classical modes of defense mechanisms in psychoanalysis. This text Anna Freud has indirectly use psychological data Freudian psychoanalysis. It is an attempt to integrate psychoanalysis psychology, attempt some critical, fearing that the synthesis of psychology and psychoanalysis absorbs the second in the first - that psychoanalysis is absorbed by the psychology.
This work is also in the long struggle between Anna Freud and Melanie Kein regarding child psychoanalysis.
For many, this work has fed directly into a stream of thought that could be called "psychoanalysis of consciousness", and has especially gained momentum in the United States thanks to the followers of ego psychology - the psychology of the self -, developed by Hartmann, Kris et Lowenstein. I thought it was amusing to note here that Lacan was analyzed by the same Rudolf Löwenstein, psychoanalysis, psychoanalysis he company 1933, just after his thesis, analysis that will last six years ending after historical sources in a particular way. En effet, Löwenstein have agreed to Lacan is accepted as a member of the SFP on the sole condition that he continue his analysis and in his, apparently, immediately elected, Lacan would have interrupted the said analysis, Lowenstein et, one year later, party would, have migrated to the USA in the context of the due time. This analysis was relatively long time, Löwenstein would say that Lacan was a man unanalyzable, and Lacan, in turn, reportedly said that was not enough Löwenstein intelleigent to analyze. And it was after his departure that the United States will develop Löwenstein the movement of ego psychology, strongly criticized Lacan - I will return at the end of exposure.
Therefore, Anna Freud this text is relatively easy to read text, even if it requires some attention, it is short, it is cut into small pieces, and obviously it is very close to the classical psychoanalytic theory developed by his father, Sigmund: So we feel the importance of the father in all this text. So that, I go to the second part: "The ego, seat of defense mechanisms ".
So what strikes first, the early pages, is the vocabulary used by Anna Freud warrior throughout the book, and found throughout the text. And so we understand at the outset that good daughter of his father, his theory is constructed with the assumption of the second topical, namely the three bodies of the psychic apparatus, that the, the ego and the superego. These three bodies are at war, perpetual war, to me by mediating defending himself from attacks from the top and bottom, UTILIZING and for that defense mechanisms.
Anna Freud in his book thus presents a picture of the conflict that occurs between me, the id and the superego, direct reference to the second topic of his father.
She begins her book with a critique of psychoanalysis at the time, questioning approach that is all too common for colleagues, namely only an analysis of the unconscious. According to her, Many analysts at the time denigrate me, instance it intends to restore good course of this work: for her, we must study all the layers that the deeper layers of the personality, in their relations with the outside. According to her, psychoanalytic treatment has always been subject to the self and its disorders. The study does not constitute a therapeutic means. The goal of treatment for Anna Freud is the disappearance of disorders and restoring the integrity of the self. Focusing on me, we realize that the perception of emotions instinctual always passes me by. That observed in psychoanalytic treatment, according to Anna Freud, it is the distorted it by myself and it never itself. To study this, the analyst can not go to his offspring that enter the system preconscious and conscious; as the superego, although its contents are mostly aware, can study through me when I was hostile to the superego.
Therefore, conclusions in, Anna Freud, the ego is the area that should always apply the attention of the psychoanalyst, since it allows to get a picture of the two other bodies, XXX and significantly rehabilitate this instance it considers denigrated by other colleagues psychoanalysts. Here I will quote from the text:
We remark that all our knowledge were provided by the study of outbreaks opposite direction, that is to say it's pushed me to; if the successful repression seems so obscure point, the movement in opposite directions, that is to say, the return of the repressed as we observe in the neuroses, seems, him, perfectly clear. Here we follow step by step the struggle between the instinctual emotion and ego defense. The same, is the reaction forces of disintegration which allows better study how these occurred. The thrust of this, hitherto marked by reaction formation is enhanced. This is what allows the instinctual emotion of their way to conscious. For some time, instincts and reaction formations are both visible in both the me. Another function of the ego, its tendency to synthesis, that this condition extremely favorable analytical observation persists only a few moments. Further conflict ensued between the offspring of this activity and I, conflict must lead either to win one of the two parties, or to the formation of a compromise between the two. One, by strengthening its investment it stops the attack, in a state of psychic anxiety any adverse observation is established again.
So in this way it is the vocabulary that I described in the beginning of the presentation as a warrior, and then sketch in this passage also two functions that will eventually develop, namely defense mechanisms, specific to me, and the synthetic function of the ego. Defense, why, against which? According to Anna Freud all methods of defense tend towards a single goal, to help me in the fight against the instinctual life.
François speaks Leguil
from "In a speech that would not be appearing",
Seminar XVIII J. Lacan
15 March 2012
I'll speak up, because it is a symptom home, symptom, unlike perhaps think that Anna Freud, on which that plan did not perhaps in memory of Freud to the 1926, when the symptom is the last line of defense on. Or, still, Inhibitions in, Symptoms, anxiety, the symptom is something that is immediately initiated by anxiety as a function of signal. And symptoms in Freud certainly did not have the status of being as a last line of defense.
So I think, really, your presentation was - first, I thank you because I must confess to my shame that I've never worked the Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense by Anna Freud, there you summarize very admirable, at bottom, which could oppose Anna Freud and Lacan, while both were exceptional characters; I have a good friend, XXX Bernardino that, when he was admitted to the IPA, it was proposed to meet Anna Freud and Melanie Kein. And he says that as Melanie Klein was a repulsive person, suspicious, not nice, and it retains a memory of Anna Freud as a woman of charisma and power of contact with the interlocutor was quite amazing.
I found your presentation to the bottom clearly showed that opposes Anna Freud and Lacan: it is an opposition of two drives: they do not read Lacan (sic) such: it, she looks obviously - this is what Freud had to touch, Finally, at the same time Freud was 1935 taken in a number of personal and political difficulties, Anna Freud and his father playing with a role that must still be qualified as absolutely heroic. But we - we can see when we read Anna Freud than it does with the work of Freud, is to seek what we can say beyond this work. So we Lacan, on the contrary, in the situation has beautiful raised earlier Marlene, Lacan Freud treats as a written work, that is to say, he reads Freud as we learn to read the symptom, to borrow a title of a recent intervention Miller. That is to say that Freud treated as an event, as an event whose work demonstrates that this event took place. Do not forget that the event, this is a category that appears at the beginning of the Seminar On Speech that is not the semblance - this event is a fact of speech, Lacan says, there is no event that makes speech. This also makes it possible to tell the time that the event has not occurred: you can tell if you're half typed, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were never destroyed; if you typed a little bastard and you can even say that the gas chambers of the Nazi genocide, it never existed. Because, as event, it is related to speech. And Lacan sees in his concept of pretending, exactly, a desire to reduce the artifact called, that is to say that everything around us is made of speech. And it will use the notion of pretending to try to see how a scientific ideal can reduce the artifact.
So Freud treats as an event, that is to say, as a said, as a work, and possibly as an intended meaning - you know Lacan on that plane was not embarrassed: Freud isolates at a given time, on a line, the distinction between the ego ideal and the ideal self, and the whole second part of your presentation, in which Lacan has made it derives from: a line of Freud, in 1914, that is to say, he interprets Freud making the text really say all that reading can bring.
So you also noted the warlike aspect of Anna Freud: it, it was his father. Vocabulary warrior Freud is a vocabulary that is directly in our subject today, since what is that war? Well war is not to pretend. And all the rest of the seminar is for example: in which the woman is the man litmus test, The moment of truth? That is to say, just as we live our sexuality and our enjoyment by the pretenses, wherein, when is the moment of truth, cest-ie summoned to answer what may be the sexual encounter between a man and a woman, Lacan says this is the moment of truth. And war is the moment of truth.
I read earlier sentence, is, "I pansay, Guarit God "- Ambroise Pare sentence, I love Ambroise Paré, for lots of reasons, was a native surgeon ... very close to where my wife, This is one more reason to be interested in it myself, Ambroise Paré and when he says: "I pansay, Guarit God "- today we say" cured "; but "cure", ça vient much you anglais true, which gave with consonant mutation "guar", "Heal you", which also gave "guarantee" and "gate". Anglais et le terme defense, defense, Mekanismus defense, also comes from the Wahr, which has the same origin as Warheit. That is to say that the defense and the truth is a, have, initially, the same origin. In this time also the German Wahr, here goes donner Wehr, Abwher the defense and Wahr the truth - which is not unrelated to this debate on the pretense, it means both the spear - war - and the injury! So that at start healing, it is both the word "guarir", it is both the word that means the injury and how to address them.
It gave a whole series of things ... so-called light horses, it is the horses that carry the war, the spear that gave home, Gerard eg, Gerard is the spear-carrier, good. Therefore, this vocabulary warrior is obviously at the heart, I am looking for, XXX obviously we finally challenged he told us, I have a great idea to bring us all today, I just know that this idea is that ! Then, we'll all spend our efforts trying to find what was the idea, but there is a relationship between this vocabulary eminent warrior, la guerre, the truth, This is a report etymological, and the relationship between truth and pretense is obviously a report that appears immediately to mind.
I must say that so I actually speak up because I'm always a little anxious when I have to speak in public, where this symptom ... at least give me the means to move and possibly write on the board when I know what to say ... We can get down like that, I'll try it as.
Another small rapid introduction. At bottom, this case seemed, since I must summarizes twenty minutes a seminar, I can only decide to pretend! Pretend to have read, and to act my subjective relationship with this most intimate affair seemed. But I can tell you that appearances, I must say that Lacan, I put the time and I'm not sure to always understand what it is.
Semblance, it's still a derogatory term: "Cest semblance. "So, Miller devoted a seminar to show that this is not: just pretend that the, Lacan says at the beginning of the seminar, the semblance, this is what has allowed the rise of science. The semblance is for example the first Greek scholars watching the stars and all of a sudden started to think that there are constellations. And Lacan, The constellation is a semblance.
Just now, always in this beautiful page that Marlene has chosen, it evokes the thunder, Lacan says "The thunder is a semblance. "So I do not know if it is because the car we talked about the Evian agreements, but I immediately returned this sentence: "Consent makes the law fruitful occurs I know that the light of thunder. "Who is this sentence?
"Consent makes the law fruitful occurs I know that the light of thunder. »
-This is Jean-Jacques Rousseau still?
-Not. But he had read ... It probably knew Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
-Either. This is a politician and a French military: Charles de Gaulle. The political world has changed; whatever respect ... abroad should not speak ill of his country, but I can not imagine Nicolas Sarkozy say: "Consent makes the law fruitful occurs I know that the light of thunder. » (laughter in the room). What's that? What does it mean? It means that without pretending that beckons the heavens and the divine, the subject does not adhere to the law. Consent alone makes the law fruitful, and it takes the semblance of thunder to mobilize. It, it reminded me, XXX just remember that I was psychiatrist, it reminded me of something that for me has been instrumental, and you will see that this case seemed, for Lacan is the return that will last ten years, the return of the whole theme of belief in the clinic. Lacan defines 46 belief as a necessary basis for the phenomenon of hallucination. And he said, "The belief, this phenomenon with its ambiguity in human, with her too much and too little to the knowledge, since it is less than know, but it is perhaps more, state is to engage, but it is not sure. Ey admirably since it could not be eliminated the phenomenon of hallucination and delirium. "That is to say that the hallucination to the doctor's testimony that there is something in the brain that releases, Lacan says that this phenomenon would not exist without the belief about the voices he hears. So it is set up as a form of hallucination seemed essential - like thunder, if I may say.
Me that touched me because I remember when I was an intern, and I had the opportunity to present patients of Dr. Lacan, [d’une] was hallucinating as I have rarely seen - his brain was an aviary, finally really, which piaillait around, and once the patient has left the room, Lacan turns to me and says - to a somewhat nasty - you told me why she was hallucinating? (laughter in the room). I told him, But Mr., because she told me. -Ah ! But why did you flood? And then he told me softly, then gently, Because if you believe, it will not help it, no longer believe.
Then, back: What is a semblance? Semblance is - I asked this morning, in the room of the Hotel du XXX, you open the shutters and roofs were behind it must be said quite commonplace, we see Mount Pilatus. Wonder, évmerveillement my wife and myself, we stayed attached to the snowy summit. Pilatus, this is not a semblance. The mountains we see the other side of Lake Geneva, this is not a semblance. It is even what is more real a mountain, Hegel said mountains: It is so, thus. By cons, why I think the Pilatus is more beautiful than the roof unfortunate that took time to build? The fact that the Pilatus, the mountains, on the other side of the Geneva, me, can never be theorized nor be conceived without actually going through the concept of pretending.
That is to say that what appears mountains, Es is so, so real, actually I have that effect because I live in a world of appearances. After all the mountains I could find absolutely average, I could find absolutely no interest and prefer the dish with roofs that allow you to have the big TV in the world, prettier than the summit, the rising lights, good. Eh bien, the semblance, for Lacan, this is actually a new way for him to say how the symbolic and the imaginary summon the subject as an effect.
So that one of the key issues of this case pretenses, and he said right from the beginning in a polemic against linguists, he said at the beginning, is introduced into the subject's relation to language and images, effectively to bring what is his involvement subjective and what is the essential function of language is the function of truth. And so we see that Lacan identifies ten years more the question of the enjoyment and the question of the real, Seminar on with this pretense, massively reintroduced question of truth - since it seemed that possibly is not true: "It's pretend", children say, "This is for real or semblance?'"Well, Lacan shows in the first part of the seminar that function just pretend it is used to account for the primary function of language which is the function of truth.
Lacan second use of this invention will obtain, This reinvention calling the comment that we convene, this reinvention of the French language seem, Lacan shows that this arrangement semblances between them is what allows it to define the second function of language and pretend, which is the function of speech. Namely, that the pretenses arrange them according conjunctions quite defined and to define how the subject with images and words trying to get a grip on reality. And you know that in his four speeches he puts at the top of which is the agent of discourse, Lacan puts function appearing. And he distinguished four following speech function that will pretend what he calls the master-signifier, depending on whether the function cete sembalnt will know what he calls, or what he calls the subject, or the real object XXX. So we see these issues very considerable.
Another issue that also Seminar, is that with this new definition of the relationship of the subject to language through the promotion of the concept of pretending, Lacan will try to answer the big question of the day, especially around philosophers like Derrida, Michel Foucault, ago when he reads this seminar does not name, but we can clearly see that in reality it is intended when he said: "Nobody can be the author of a discourse" - this is clearly addressed to Michel Foucault. As for Derrida there is a lot of ...
Lacan will use this pretense to try to move on: What is the function of writing? And advance what is directly in line with Anna Freud, an extension of your presentation on Anna Freud, the function of writing plays in relation to the unconscious as a place where living without pretense that the subject is present, Lacan has a beautiful definition, the unconscious, He says it is the place where pretenses are actually the subject is represented without being itself, that is to say, instead of a discourse that operates that determines the subject without the subject may in no case be estimated to be the author, Well Lacan writing that it is the unconscious that the secondary process is the primary process. So that you see how Lacan gives to the question of pretending, is given by the theoretical to say what the symptom, which is an invention of psychoanalysis, it reads the symptom. The patient's speech, ça se lit. You know this is something that is much income Lacan: what a psychoanalyst? This is someone who tries, it's someone who reads where it speaks. That is to say, where you actually a word, he will not hear anything, but read what is said by moving eg cuts and produce another message that was actually formulated.
So is the seeming Lacan, with what he will say the function of writing, reporting process secondary to the primary process, semblance is for Lacan a way to renew the theory of symptom. And you - I do not have time, since I see that I passed my twenty minutes - to conclude, to have prepared a sort of compendium, you throughout this decade from 1962 at 1972, gradually you see the stones made by Lacan to try to do what? Trying to see what the symptom - so at the Seminar on Anxiety - Lacan notes that the symptom is enjoyment, it is Freudian, Freud might say that the subject enjoys his symptom, it does not say it but he speaks as secondary benefits, he speaks of the negative therapeutic reaction, Freud and the symptom, in any case at the Freud 1926 and in some ways it can be found at Anna as she says that there are successful defenses that are deleterious to the subject. The symptom is but enjoyment is enjoyment if the symptom is no longer message - and it is no longer message is no longer the uprising against the knowledge of truth, what was the old definition of the fifties. Uprising truth, repression, makes the representatives of the unconscious instinctual impulse against the knowledge that, at bottom, trying to arrange, to move, to organize what Marlene reading Lacan called the avoidance of castration. Lacan and therefore seeks to theorize the bottom to see how the symptom became training Maintenat enjoyment in what is Freud's discovery is: new status of truth. And so it goes, with this case pretenses, it will provide the means to show how the symptom is a being of truth, is a being of knowledge and how it all actually is tied to a certain enjoyment.
It also gives with this theory pretend, it provides the means to solve what we rebuke many psychoanalysts, is that this symptom is a psychoanalyst is not for the common man, is not for the common man - as for us it is a truth evident, that we all have in our family of people who are affected by symptoms, honestly, they would prefer to be scrofulous, blind or lame so they XXX with their symptoms, but they a symptom? hein, ah, bah, good.
Contradiction that the symptom does not exist and at the same time it is this seeming, be of use, of truth and knowledge. And you see already define what Lacan will actually be able to develop on the status of the woman who is very present here, I wanted to quote several times from the Writings of Jacques-Alain Miller (sic), at bottom, in the Writings, what it is defense? You know there is a simple way to understand Lacan, this is to invert the graph Lacan, sunset and set the horizontal. Here you have the symptom - I'll finish it - the symptom is basically the signified of the subject's encounter with the language. Here you have the great XXX, wherein the response is, XXX treated well, which is the response to the confrontation of the subject with its image, and you here what Lacan calls the fantasy; here you have the hole is where the language is so I can say the demonstration is unable to respond to the actual drive, which is the place of psychic causality; and you here the identification. Well symptom, in 1960, is already at the center of something that is symbolic, something that comes from the imaginary, and something that comes from the real. You know that Lacan, I think you find this page 169 Writings of, Lacan says that fantasy is actually an institution that covers the real truth. The fantasy is the establishment of a real truth that covers the hole of a language not name the enjoyment. Or, at the beginning of the Seminar, Lacan says that the analytic discourse is not appearing when stumbles on an impossible, and that it is not actually what is fantasy. Lacan believes that the fantasy, it is only a small picture, it is a little more or a little joke villainy you raconteriez, fantasy is actually a real screen who builds your relationship to reality. And when the actual screen does not work well, Well instead of just simply find it would be nice to be a woman undergoing the coupling, must become this woman - I'm talking to an audience that I imagine to be expert in the writings of Schreber. From the moment Lacan reintroduces the dimension of the symptom as a pretense that actually the real issues tied to know XXX, Truth and enjoyment, it is clear that there is a certain, Lacan, some neglect - not the theory of fantasy but in any case stop it represents a place of XXX - Lacan always thought that was a real fantasy that is why he says that the , fantasy can be a lifting of repression, and thus with the pretense, and that it can definitely redevelop the Freudian text other than through the mechanism, the Freudian text, Freud's theory of the primary process and secondary process, Lacan has something there that he re-opens the clinic of psychosis. Because indeed, time when the defense was both fantasy, symptom and me, it is clear that we can not think of Clinque psychosis. This is also how he opens "Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire" - it says at the bottom for psychosis, that part just.
And therefore the theory of Lacan may seem back on what he may very processed decade, which is precisely the clinical psychosis - the clinical psychosis known today, effectively, issues, seen in France with what happened to autism, issues, what is real or not in such and such a practice, are prominent. That's what I meant.
-Thank you very much, you said that you spoke of vingft minutes, I did not see the time passing, but anyway, the goal is that we can intervene and bounce and make you talk again twenty minutes twice with Mathilde. When you said that had the semblance function to restore the function of truth, it made me think a patient who works in prisons and is a great thinker of freedom, So it is from the moment we are in prison, working in the prison you are in prison as a large part of his life, and it is impossible not to think of freedom, and the question of pretending she reveals the truth just as you have clearly demonstrated. Then, now, at the end you enter the fantasy and from the moment you enter the fantasy I feel that you have found the missing link, is, that can unite the defense and pretend, I will not pretend, this is exactly what I thought, but I wish we had found earlier. Marlene had also spoken of the operator, semblance and defense as operators, my question is: is that the pretense can be considered an operator, in its relation to the unconscious? Because if one side there is the possibility of restoring the function of truth, another point of view it is also all that is ephemeral, he spoke of pretense and gave as an example the thunder, He also spoke of the sky ar, and he also spoke about the meteor; So these events as it, ephemeral, precisely that contrast with all that is written, as the letter, character. While the relationship with the enjoyment you highlighted but also with insconscient.
FL. About the character: I understood what a semblance, if you go to Florence, I believe in the church of Maria del Carmine, Chapel XXX, frescoes XXX, "The shadow of St. Peter healing the sick". So Peter is in the street, there where patients with extremely, and those affected by the shadow of St. Peter effectiuvement are cured. You know that the shadows in the legend of mathematics is extremely important, since it is said that Pythagoras discovered what the hypotenuse, XXX define everything we could do with a triangle reflecting on the shadow of the pyramids, relative, effectively in the course of the sun. Today, the debate, I am very frightened by friends who say that psychiatric drugs are placebos; I'm also scared that when laboratories say, These are miracle drugs. Why? Because it is obvious that a drug, molecule, this is not the semblance, but the subject is which absorbs a subject as a subject of the signifier that lives in a world of appearances. And it is absurd, since all scientific procedures, called double-blind, is of procedures that are calculated to remove the size of the subject at all levels. It is necessary that the dimension of the subject is completely absent from the prescriber, and requires that the dimension of the subject is completely absent on the side of the person who takes the drug: very strict procedures where the doctor actually do not know if it gives the right or the wrong product, and the patient does not know if it is good or bad, that is to say that all, you've removed any dimension of the subject. Results: you have become completely contradictory results symptom of the foreclosure of the subject, but quite obvious. C "is to say that it is silly to say that the psychotropic medication does not, to say that it is chemically. It is certainly chemically, but on a subject that is itself the effect that the world of appearances as he organizes his household enjoyment; and if you eliminate this dimension, you results, when it comes to the subject.
-Yes I also think that the pharmaceutical industry does not eliminate, This is impressive as they use signfiants when you think a drug like Surmontil eg.
FL- They use just to reintroduce the effect-on at what has become the master discourse, which is the discourse of the capitalist, Lacan says; that is to say what establishes agent, it is encryption, encryption actually names. This discourse of capitalist eg gradually transformed the disabled mentally ill in, that is to say, who can gradually develop another report anyone in the world in which we live than actually something which stood as a less. The industry catches this case with advertising appearances. There was the other night - I'll finally tell you all about my trip to Lucerne - last night I listened I do not know what advertising, toothpaste or cosmetic, and advertising said, it works, this is great, "It is clinically proven". Good, this is great, that is to say, they realize they can no longer say "scientifically". And therefore they are perfectly identified the need to introduce a semblance certifying that there is real; and basically, it still shows that Lacan is that the real bottom is not reached with semblances. What makes Miller say for example that, a certain arrangement of appearances, this is what the science can achieve real and Miller says: what is a non-dupe? This is someone who does not believe in appearances and therefore remained in the prescientific era. Today only a few numbers you can send a rocket to the moon: only semblances, because it reflects something essential that we as subjects of the unconscious, it is indeed our pretenses with symptoms is to ensure a certain real.
MB- I had a quick question Mathilde, in fact I found it very interesting because I either I have not read much Freud Anna - I read a few summaries for today -, but I wanted to ask you, in fact, there is this whole list of defense mechanisms, then how she deals with it, in its clinical, in practice? That is to say that in fact the child who is afraid, the child represses, and everything that inhibits, how is it takes sy? Because it is pretty good, you have all these mechanisms, and then, what we do? I add another question because in fact it struck me too, I, is that, in fact in the United States, in fact we told the children, we do not say the words but pretend pretend, he said, when there is a stuffed animal that is a little scary and all, pretend we say, this is not a true, pretend it is, semblance. And then, they say that at the same time they are given strict instructions of telling them, Attention, must not leave, because it's dangerous outside, everywhere is dangerous and stuff. So how in fact it claims to combine, Finally, when they fear they are told, This is pretend, and after they were told, Attention because everything is dangerous. Then there is this dual mechanism of semblance, and then after they are told, But beware, you can get something. Then the child would be entitled to say, But pretend ! – as soon as you say it is dangerous pretend. Then there would be things that would not pretend and do fear that?
MMH- Yes, then the first question, finally she said very little about what it takes to make these defenses, in the text; she list, it gives clinical examples where it says that a child has taken an object to overcome the fear, etc., So it gives clinical examples but it does not say what to do, these defense mechanisms. That is why I asked this question at the end of the first part by saying, Finally, what we actually? They are beneficial to an end, they too are pathological, I also see it here in my clinic at the hospital where finally, when bad news is announced to the people they sometimes find it difficult to hear because they deny any right mechanisms to put in place; tell us the somaticians, He understood nothing of what is happening, so what do we do with it? Does it need to shake this defense may undermine the patient? Or otherwise, force on the defense saying that it protects me this is weakened to the point; so for me it is a matter that concerns me anyway in my clinical work because: What we do with these defense mechanisms are good, useful and necessary FUNCTIONING mental condition but can if they are too large, too much hinder? So Anna Freud does not really answer this question; and also fairly advanced pathological side can take defense.
MB- What is missing, what you feel is missing, when we read Lacan and hear your summary of Anna Freud, this is in fact what is lacking is the language! That is to say,, on is dit, These children they will, they do it, but do they speak? That is to say, what she reads, it, back to what was said, reads the symptom; what she reads, it, This defense mechanism?
MMH- Then she reads them as being there to keep away from an impulse that comes to ...
X- Yes, displeasure that may come from many instances, yes.
X-I think you hit it really a side has not responded, since it seems that Freud - not just Anna -, they lean on defense as the only therapeutic option since we did not, working drives were not ... How can I change anything? It is through the defenses there would be a possible change. Together, this response we miss her. Voius want to ask a question?
Y-Oui, to complete a few that just said Mathilde, it made me think about the protocol that I used years ago when I worked in institutional psychiatry where there, where XXX is made where indicated what are the defense mechanisms used by the child; and according to the XXX, ça east of the diagnostic, that is to say to achieve a diagnostic. So defense mechanisms aligned Anna Freud are generally in the direction of a neurosis, and that, later, kleinien, cleavage, the projective XXX etc., etc. denial., it is rather to psychosis. Use this, Read this, it seemed that we would use, the institutional language, to guide the practitioner to arrive at a diagnosis and then after, treat the child. So for use in analysis that's another problem, because there, dans inhibition, Symptom, Anxiety, Freud used repression, is it not, for the formation of primary symptom, and this is where there will be a signifier to discharge, and what is repressed, and this representation is repressed interpretable. So what is the unconscious which he said a lot of work, which Jacques-Alain Miller said, Do you want in here, meaning, meaning, sense of infinity. Here, it is the use that could make treatment.
In- I found fascinating the representation of Mr. Leguil last all day, and then there is an issue that concerns me, about reading and writing; So the symptom is writing; and if I heard, the psychoanalyst is one who would be responsible for XXX; and I wonder if it would not be quite the analysand who would be responsible for reading, because ... I want you to tell us a little more, with the presentation, Dr. Lacan when you spoke kindly and unkindly, it was very nice because, at the bottom ... is it really necessary to believe? Is there someone who can work with delirium without believing a little? How is it that someone who can read delirium if you do not believe a bit, and then must read this, and then saying that it is a delusion? So the question to read the symptom, that is very interesting, it is also about the year XXX.
FL-I'm going to try to meet the small clinical example that you mentioned, to parents that we must announce bad news. And the bottom, can be done with grievance, that was announced their new XXX anyway with enough persuasion they did not understand. At bottom, that's also what allows Lacan with his invention, like this, his discovery of pretense: is to simplify the clinical extreme, showing that it is always an issue between what makes sense and what will never feel that is the real. And that's really something you can constantly move: Lacan says at the end of the Seminar, that the substance of the pretenses and enjoyment are not made any such, as he says in "Position of the Unconscious" and "The Body of Truth" that drives are on the side of the thing and the fun is on the side of the Other, good. So it means that the enjoyment is on the side of reality, and everything else is on the meaning. Therefore, at bottom, these people who are posting bad news show what? They refuse to show it makes sense for them, it is still. And what we have to do in this symptom, this is what is the real impossible to bear, which they may not be in a position, general temporary, or it must give them time, trying to see what is real for them it totally unbearable because they can not get that défendrent refusing pretenses - because a diagnosis, it is still a semblance, it is always, scientific as it is and even, more it will be more scientific pretend it's, that is to say it is a more human-made, which enables, there diagnostic, this is not Lacan, c’est Bachelard, is any scientific epistemology - well, there diagnostic, this seeming, somehow, they respond by showing that they are absolutely not willing to make sure that it makes sense for them, and that the real, that's it, finally, this is the real deal which we will.
Then for the function of writing. I was too fast. XXX I think it is not reasonable. What Lacan says is that it is the symptom response to what is the function of writing in the language; you know it will logifier up by saying that this is a symptom that does not cease to write, whereas love is what continues to write, and that the real is what does not cease not to write. What makes this symptom Seminar, this is sex, and that's what I meant. Basically when he speaks of fantasy, you find that particular page 824 Writings of, when he speaks of fantasy Lacan seeks to allocate obsessional neurosis and hysterical neurosis following XXX subjective position they occupy in relation to fantasy. It is the neurotic obsessive someone stepping up its efforts to deny and to ensure the defense of ... obsessive is one that actually increases its effort to ensure that this fading topic does not exist, is an impossible, and hysterical, which on the contrary that which is on the side of the object always fail to another and divide. If you read this Seminar, to use a military term, we see that the huge advantage for the clinical, this case seemed, that is to say, to reduce the issue only now it is the symptom; is to get if I say - it is a term of war - that is to bring men and women in contact. Is that the clinical, this is wrong because it is on earth, due pretenses, two races, two races irreconcilable, irreconcilable, it will never, which is the race of men and women race. This is what he says somewhat, he said XXX "exquisite courtesy animals" that actually, when all pretenses were made, if Madame did not want, Mr. does nothing. And he contrasts it to the man is that, when all pretenses were made, well from time to time, - Lacan XXX since it is full wave feminist - occasionally well there is a man who rapes a woman, point, "And vice versa" (audience laughter). Good. That means he makes all the clinical, it is all the result of the clinic what happens now between man and woman; somehow he returned to his fable of two children who fall into the station and said one to Hold on is H and the other says, Fool, it is F. It is a story that I believe has given him his wife. And somehow the whole end of the seminar ... well it's nice when a case is as simple as it is because it still must be said not always the case. At bottom, just what it says is that: a man is a man that he must stay in front of the fact that there are women, XXX and a woman to live in a world where there are men. But there are men and women, precisely, under pretenses and appearances in which fits into a discourse which is not, semblance, since this speech shows that it is impossible to get men and women together. At bottom, sex, somehow, exists in the animal world. Good, the male arrives, develops all its feathers, in fact, as we should always do whatever genre it belongs, XXX, and the female said, Not. Lacan dit, The exquisite courtesy fact that nothing happens. So that in some way, sex is hung consent which makes the animal pretenses fruitful. Humans, in humans, the pretense that organize the distribution of men and women are so that it does not work together. It is only through the pretense that you know why you're a man, it, I can say that all those who have met once in their life a transsexual, we know that sex is not his anatomy, but his appearances in relation to. You have someone eighteen, you said with certainty that it is a man, she knows from the age of four, or vice versa, it is clear that this is not in relation to the anatomy like the picture would only, is determined that sexually; we determine sexually in an arrangement between the language and images that Lacan calls pretenses. Therefore, because of appearances, I ranked in that category, I see that there are people who fall into that category, therefore pretenses on that plane do things well, Well lack of pot: does not work. Does not work, we can not meet. This is why it is a discourse that would not seem, but psychoanalysis shows that, Yet we pretend the same: the phallus, that actually manages to catch the language, the ego, image and enjoyment. Kindly, men and women are moving in relation to the phallus, well then it does not work ! This is perhaps what defines the bottom, the truth of psychoanalysis.
X-Yes, he develops a lot in this issue of the Seminar around pretending gender differences, and we always want to know if this was currently, now seeing all these seeming profusion of variations around gender, what he could say? Moreover there is a time when it refers to an author who should be one of the first in gender studies, here, where he speaks of transsexualistes, this is the word he used at the time ...
FL- He says that a certain face, what we know of psychosis lit many cases. He speaks of a psychotic face. I love this language nuance Lacan, there is in Lacan makes the diagnosis, believes that we can not say that this is more or less more or less it, and then there was a whole other Lacan, who speaks the range of structures, depending on whether you are on one side of the fold, this is not the same thing as if you're on the other, depending on whether you deploy it like this or like this, and then he said: "By their psychotic face, that enlighten the case ", this is very nice, it is very nuanced, because what is at the bottom, neurosis, psychosis and perversion? These are three appearances ! These are appearances. And we do not currently, as they pot scientists! They see TB, it dies in series, and then one day tac, there is one who finds the bacillus, the blades to the sur sa! and there, the seeming change of status. The semblance is a great efficiency. Same for typhoid, tac you see the thing, XXX and that the subject wants to heal or not, it kills the bacillus.
From the moment when the subject is in question, the effect of the signifier, and being connected with the world by pretending, actually it will not stop the impact of this failure it has more intimate, which is actually his identification with a gender, thanks to pretend phallus, and through which can write logically, eh bien, it does not guarantee, if I may say, harmonious relationship with the opposite sex. So ... I talk too much here ...
FL- XXX science, today is that if you think it would be nice to be a woman undergoing the coupling, you go to see XXX Surgeons ! Which you arrange them that ! And it, it changes every speech. It is clear that there is an effect that it actually is not at all that which Freud was confronted: science the real exchange. Lacan and early, not, He also said that: "The future of symptoms depends on the future of the real". When to 16 years you have a human body and you want to become a girl, or vice versa, it is still not the same reality which case you will have if you lived 150 years before. And your life is completely changed.
X-Bon, there is still the question of the law XXX, the question of ethics is still very present in the hospital, ethics committees that put a bit of a law to regulate these issues around research, these aesthetic research, "Is that such intervention, Such an operation is ethical? "So something that is regulated, thereby controlling the trend in al this madness or psychosis. Must still emphasize.
FL-Yes. I took that example but you know, Ethics Committees, as Montaigne said when told in a war of religions which god he believed, he always said, "I believe in the religion of my king", what was still more reasonable, and it is more beautiful, it is very beautiful. You know, ethics committees, if such a thing is prohibited in one country, well you pass the border. The French are very aware of that. In France we can afford today to be against the adoption of children by homosexual couples, Just because a ticket, take the XXX, uh, pardon, the manufacture of children by homosexual couples, that is to- that women can have a child without being in a relationship with a man, France can well afford to ban it, XXX XXX that allows the party to engage devout, which is still the biggest problem for French Henri IV, Henri III même: how to be friends with Protestants, while leading Catholics in the country, Well we in France forbids the manufacture of children under homosexual, and to take a ticket suffut railroad, you take the XXX, you go to Brussels and then the case is. So ethics committees, this is really something that is significant, our company is crucial absolumment, but for each, for each, XXX, but someone decided today, someone actually decided, because it is relative to its pretense that he did not fit the anatomy, you know it is the place where ethics committees have decided otherwise. Is, reality is stronger. But I want to return to these ... when doctors say: "He did not understand, etc. », is that you get to make them wait?
X-Ben oui. I tell them it does take time and when they are ready they will hear, but it is something that strikes many colleagues who say somaticians, But finally, what happens to him, they do nothing comprennet XXX.
MB-They need to understand.
So this X-, they need to understand, doubtless, but it takes time. But the question to me when I am asked often long to see these parents, this is: What we actually? And how exactly is it household or attack their defenses.
FL-Yes. It is still dangerous as formula, "Attack defense". I prefer the Miller: "Disturb", and not make it as if I may say impenetrable. "Attacking the defense" is still ... well I think Lacan speaks I do not know where the space is organized defense where the subject, and that's really about removing his Lebenstraue, this is really touching its Lebenstraue.
X-Yes, because it returns to the discourse of war, a discourse that would not seem, but is it that there would be another except that of war?
FL-I do not believe at all that today's speech War is the seeming, I mean since ...
Here X-then it would be the war itself would not be a semblance.
FL-must visit the historical museum of Zurich, you understand why the Swiss mercenaries were often called as, they learned to Castagner from childhood, what actually manufactured good warriors. Aujnourd'hui, if you want someone to be effective in a war must be at least 6 or 7 years of higher education to drive a tank: drive a tank today, if you are not an electronics engineer, it is cooked. So is that the seeming. And occasionally there is still someone who takes his raisonnanble mitrailette and that will kill 15 or 20 to remind people that, that still war, is to directly kill if I may say. So this is atrocious, but I believe that when Lacan says: "In a speech that is not appearing", that is to say that its own logic abuts on a real. That is to say that if I am a man, or woman, only that in my story has spared my report to say that appearances are that gender and what gender difference in the world, I'm still constantly summoned to the moment of truth - including the choice of sexual object: if you choose not to object, an object of the same sex, finally, therefore, that, confrontation with the reality that is precisely the moment of truth for sembants. And then the subject is tested, effectively, the speech is an arrangement of pretending he performs and which determines stumbles on an impossible. Is that this speech can say he is a man or a woman stumbles it is logically impossible that this would meet with the sexual object. This is quite amazing, is that on that plane no defense is good: For example if you decide for a man, that the moment of truth would be too dangerous for you - I'm speaking a little naive -, and you make the choice of homosexuality, anyone who has ever had to listen to that is that the clinical jealousy homosexuality, we see that they have nothing to envy to heterosexuals intensity: it may also give the opportunity as a masterpiece In Search of Lost Time,which is absolutely a long variant of what could be the torture of jealousy in a lifetime, a homosexual; this is one of the greatest masterpieces of literature. And that means that there is no solution: there is no solution in the world that allows subjects - world organized by appearances - there is no solution that effectively show that there is a match between what you make and pretenses .
MB-in fact, to illustrate what you say, this is the last pharse Seminar, where he said the following words: "Enjoy as much as you are enjoyed, says the author, enigmatic as you know, speaking of Ecclesiastes, this astonishing text, Enjoy with the woman you love; This is the ultimate paradox because it is precisely the love that is the obstacle. »
FL- that's a very exciting quote, because often Lacanian, condense the more telling, "Enjoy the wife you love". And suddenly the first time I read it I went to check in Ecclesiastes, Chapter IX, verse 9, the exact phrase, Lacan does not cite exactly, which is much more interesting but Lacan makes the comment even more true, this is: "Enjoy life with the wife whom thou lovest. »
MB-Ah d'accord !
FL- "During the days of your vain life, God t 'as given under the sun, all the days of thy vanity. For that is thy portion in life, in the middle of your work, which thou takest under the sun. "So" Enjoy life with the wife whom thou lovest ", Lacan actually it makes her even more pungent comment.
FL- This is the ultimate paradox because it is just to love a woman that is the obstacle, this is really Lacan, it does not have to be explained: Lacan says somewhere that there are people who are against the theory of castration; the dit, Castration has never been a theory, it is a clinical fact! The fact that the love between men and women produce a barrier to sexual fulfillment, it is not a theory: this is what we tell people every day, namely indeed the clinic daily, someone who until then believed to be a man who is all the evidence needed, for Doomsday, Guaranteed full and complete masculinity, paf, lack of pot: the thirties he falls in love with a girl, isl bed, there can not! Finally, we every day stuff like that! That from the time when love enters the sex life, it can happen anything, and general things that do not necessarily satisfy the Partners. And therefore, what Lacan means, it is indeed, love, that, him, makes it possible, that makes things cease to write, can not compensate for the lack of sex. They do not touijours obstacle, but in any case they do not come in place of the sex which is not. Since such love nothing detracts from the clinical virulence of jealousy! So if you really love your partner, you should trust him ... just like in the film Brief Encounter, but stories of gentlemen: evening, Lord leaves his wife saying, I do not know, dear, what has happened to you, but I'm sure it was. Good ! (Audience laughter) After all, if you really love your partner, should not be jealous; and also the person who is the clinic's jealousy does not deceive: the other a beautiful saying that it is through love that is now to make life unbearable, she can speak occasionally on the couch on the desire to become partners who like a little less !
MB- There are other issues? Otherwise I just wanted to say, he said in Chinese, Lacan if I'm not mistaken, when he speaks of courtesy, he says he told, it's called I believe XXX, Chinese, courtesy. Here, in any case, I think we can really thank you both because it was quite exciting, one hand to the discovery of Anna Freud and his theories, and the discussion that followed the presentation and François Leguil.
MB- The next time, I do not date, this is the month of, I believe it is in May, so it will be me who will explain with Marie-Hélène Brousse which will, and talk about the malaise in civilization and the side of psychoanalysis. I did not date in the head, I think it is 8 may, thereby, you send it anyway. Here.
(In the magazine Elucidation – unknown number)
THE CONSTELLATIONS revealing
BY JEAN-CLAUDE MILNER
The constellations do not exist; only are the stars that compose. This is a lemma of modern science. It is also one of the features that separate the differential phusis Veterans and post-Galilean Nature.
Constellations that exist, that followed the relationship between La phusis under. Because they are given to see; in truth, they do it. A celestial body that no one sees, leaves no exist for Astronomy Today. Thus will he exoplanets; planets outside our solar system, they escape to the most powerful; only calculate the returns and allows each called. En revanche, a constellation that no one would be a contradiction in terms; at the same time, no name would be assigned. An observer is required; he must have vision and language; is the man of Ovid, face turned upwards. Constellations exist only for and through him. Animals have only to, they who see the stars and sometimes in direct. When the gods who would nominate and, they are strictly anthropomorphic; Such were the ancient gods, this is not the Christian God. At the birth of Christ presides new light - comet, new, on in dispute, but certainly not constellation, sign recurrent and regular. Big difference with the child of the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil: Jam redit et virgo ...
Psychoanalysis has established that it is the subject's discourse. But she has no need to hear the philosophy that it is a subject. If it is useless philosophy, then she is harmful and should be designated as. This is the time of the anti-philosophy.
The word surprised. Reference to the philosophers seemed inseparable from the work of Lacan. Where Freud remained reserved – more Austrian than German in this respect – and ever more willing to support the arts and letters that philosophy, Lacan constantly cited corpus philosophorum. Speaking of anti-philosophy, he had decided to deny himself?
The theme is certainly dated. He was born with the reorganization, in 1975, Department of Psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII. It reappears in 1980, during a polemic by L. Althusser. Here as elsewhere, However, it would be vain to stick to the circumstances of anecdote. The reorganization of the Department of psychoanalysis has had to go through curious and disparaging palaver with the Department of Philosophy, reappeared in his own way on this occasion is a real conflict of the faculties, it is not without importance, if it is worn today by smile. But nothing does the story to justify the production of a word as violent. It can not be entirely explained by causes to the extent of his violence. If only for reasons of chronology, causes are clearly in the general search of the second classical, that is to say in the matheme.
We know that Lacan long hesitated to register in the organizational structure of the University, satisfactory to the shelter she could grant him his margins. After 1970, he accepted and perhaps wished that Party Claims department directly to him. Changes whose causes are multiple. We can not count for nothing upheaval suffered by the own academic institution in French 1968. The question is how Lacan interpreted. There are some reasons to think he understood it as a mechanism of decay; Precisely for this reason, concludes that it would cost much more to use the means that were still available within an institution obsolescent (Christians and did not hesitate to use the Empire, soon as they were assured of its incurable crisis. Even presented itself as the safest guarantee).
But it should not stop there: the university is based on an act of transmission; the legitimacy of a university department of psychoanalysis is therefore argued that a doctrine provided a transmissibility of psychoanalysis. If a university department could actually be received as a suitable place for the teaching of Lacan (new decision, remember the), This is because the doctrine of matheme was now complete. The activation of the university is not only contemporary classicism second; it requires as its necessary condition (This does not mean that it is a necessary consequence; on this, the clever compete).
Or, the reorganization of the department is summarized under the head of the anti-philosophy. This is the matheme which alone can justify the word. More exactly, the anti-philosophy is just another name matheme.
The thesis is:
It is mutual exclusion between philosophy and matheme of psychoanalysis'.
The argument is in truth easy to build. Just take the letter that many philosophers (not all) say for themselves: they depend, uninterruptible major, Greek philosophy. Or, Greek philosophy is fundamentally tied to the world of’Episteme. In some respects, she founded the world. The’Episteme, in its structure theoria Distinguée of practice, is fully licensed by the philosophy. In return, the philosopher can never be indifferent to the possibility of there’Episteme (he denies or affirms this possibility): that is to say, one who calls the soul and summons
The very name philosophy key to the foundations of such a world. The necessary pumps and, likeness and duties, the soul and its purification, this is the soul together and’Episteme deploy; Perhaps the name most likely to summarize it is that of sophia, wisdom to be loved as himself (philein). A fact that modern science renounces. Psychoanalysis explicitly deploys waiver. It is strictly the opposite of philosophy.
It is therefore concluded:
'There is no philosophy which is fully synchronous with the modern science, she would Contemporary '.
This is indeed confer a size. Contemporary philosophy of modern science testifies to her devices that are foreign; hence its relatedness gasoline mathematics, as long as it is not defined in terms of language. Even though it does not deny the major break, philosophy maintains open and problematic; she calls to think. Some would say it is in a position of absolute reference.
But psychoanalysis, meanwhile, is inherently synchronous modern science; it is of another time – logical or chronological – that philosophy. Must still be said that its own synchrony. After Freud, it no longer had to this end that the language of science adulterated ideal. This is what, the first device in the classical, that psychoanalysis uses philosophy. It is for her to insert a wedge between itself and the ideal science as Freud and Freud imagined small. Reflected in the first axiom of the subject and its namesake.
Freud had told humanist culture – literature, history, archeology. This appeal was not enough; could provide would suffice even less after the institutional collapse, military, political and moral regions where classical humanism had long survived – Germany Melancthon, Austria Jesuit, France at the Sorbonne Dreyfus. Especially as the ideal science had gained strength: it was, from 45, in the victors. The victory of liberal democracy engineers and merchants was also the victory of the more obtuse Science (18).
Return to Freud assumed therefore visit by regions that Freud himself was prohibited. Against scientism rogue of the International, weapons of philosophy were now stronger than weapons culture. To hear his intimate belonging to the world of science, Lacan must first dissolve the false membership and strictly imitative had ended up building, away from homeland, psychoanalysis English. To this end, philosophy alone could serve, since only arose, in the order of systematicity and demonstration, Other than as science.
Repeated use that Lacan's philosophy during this time does not contradict the mutual exclusion relationship it maintains with psychoanalysis. On the contrary, it implies the exclusion. It only allows philosophy is committed to raise the large masses of the ideal science and its institutional imitations. The use of philosophy is the exact reverse anti-philosophy. This also means that the second is the obverse of the first.
Remains a reversal occurred, with name creation. We went back to the obverse, the battery to the face. Lacan is probably considered won his first battle against the ideal science. Science ideal WASP, at least. With perhaps 68, that would supposedly put a stop to the expansion of painless it. With perhaps the LEM alunissant, in the real qu'irruption successful in science it delivers it to his imaginary ballasting to convene only the mathematization (“scientific discourse réusssi[t] the anulissage which attests to the emergence of a thought real. This is without the mathematical language of camera”, Television, p. 59).
To these external causes, who value symptom, Assistant to an internal cause: the emergence of the theory of matheme, consolidated by setting to the node. At the time of the second classical, the name of anti-philosophy relates specifically to the transmission. At the time of the first classical, it has not to be uttered, because the problem of full transferability of psychoanalysis has not been tackled head. It is true that during this period, Lacan holds up the relationship of psychoanalysis to modern science; it is true that incessemment use of mathematical objects, but it does not say that the only possible transmission occurs with the letter mathematical. Because in fact it has not fully empowered doctrine of the letter and because it does not define the mathematical letter. As soon as they are made theses critical, touching the letter, mathematics and transmission, the reversal can be accomplished.
The rest, it is only to quote: “To be the language most conducive to scientific discourse, mathematics is the science without conscience which is our promise good Rabelais, that which a philosopher can only remain clogged.” (The stunning, p; 9; I emphasize); “the advent of real, The landing occurred […] without the philosopher in there through each journal will be moved…” (Television, p.59; I emphasize); “I rise, if I may say, against philosophy. What is certain, is that it is a finite thing. Even though I expect that bounce rejection” (“Mr. A.), Ornicar?, 20/21, 1980, p.17; Lacan emphasizes) (19).
There is therefore no wonder that after constantly attended philosophical texts, concept formed after the reading of Hegel, After translating Heidegger, commented Plato and Descartes, quoted Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, Lacan invented a word that philosophers, it must be said, have generally taken as an insult.
In this respect, so is philosophy as politics. Their co-belonging becomes a theorem: “Metaphysics has never been and can not be extended to deal with plugging the hole in the policy. This is the spring”, Lacan writes 1973, namely addressing Heidegger (“Introduction to the German edition of Writings“, Scilicet 5, p. 13). Because the policy, also, proves radically out of sync with the modern world.
Est-ce one hasard if, Speaking of State, democracy, domination, of liberté, she speaks Greek and Latin (for some, it is true, she speaks; most of the time, she mumbles)? For this fundamental dyschronie, she called from the psychoanalytic principle of indifference. Because one or the other and the same world or the same universe;
Still that science and politics have nothing to do together – otherwise commit crimes – because they do not belong to the same world or the same universe, well psychoanalysis has nothing to do with politics – if not talk nonsense. This was, we remember, Freud's position: “agnosticism policy”, “indifference” (Science and Truth, p.858) (20). Antipolitical, arguably, parallel to the anti-philosophy.
Indifference, taken as meaning, does not necessarily lead to silence on objects whose political talks. Lacan is not always remained silent on the matter. Let's put that aside very general comments on the course of world – they remain scattered on Lacan proptreptiques interventions often do not bother and simply resume, mostly, put in relation to mass: light of intelligence in relation to the opinion, but short in terms of knowledge. There is also something else: understand the theory of the four discourses. It is an intervention in the field of empirical things policy – as a practice and as thought – deals. Successful or not, that is not the issue. It is important to emphasize, it is about the nature of. It is obvious that he does nothing to correct the radical indifference, only authorized by Freud, since about the highest political opposites may be seen as different values of the same variable.
There is even a radical philosophical indifference of psychoanalysis.
This is actually the responsibility of overabundant references corpus philosophorum. Must be profoundly indifferent to philosophy user with as much freedom, all the technical concepts, explicit or implicit allusions, or, what amounts to the same, must be taken that philosophy texts form a constellation of sparkling, but not thinking. We found the anti-philosophy, in the form of philosophical culture broadest.
No more than political indifference prevents occasionally talk politics (indifference in politics is not indifference to politics), the anti-philosophy should not stop talking about what philosophy: indifference in philosophy is not indifference to philosophy. A vrai say, must go further: psychoanalysis has not only the right, but the duty to speak about what philosophy, because it has exactly the same objects. In Television, Lacan agrees to answer the question put to him under the triple head “know, hope, do”, he argues that this issue, léguée par Kant, is irrelevant. One could certainly recognize here a simple meeting culture. Yet, the relationship is more intrinsic.
The intervention of psychoanalysis point indeed leaves summarized as: the passage of the previous time when the speaking could be other than it is infinitely – in his body and in his mind – at the subsequent time when the speaking, because of its very contingency, became quite like an eternal necessity. Finally, because psychoanalysis speaks only one thing: the conversion of each singularity of a subjective law also required that the laws of nature, they also contingent and as absolute.
Or, it is true that philosophy has stopped processing this moment. In one sens, one could argue that it was properly invented. More, to describe, it has generally taken the way of off-world. Or, psychoanalysis is nothing if it does not maintain, as central to his doctrine, there are no off-universe. Then and only then is there of structural and non-chronological in its relation to modern science.
At the same time, we understand that philosophy and psychoanalysis are talking about exactly the same thing, in terms of the more identical they are opposite effect. So, the word is anti-philosophy leaves interpret more fully; it is constructed as the name of Antichrist – as presented before Nietzsche John. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us” (1 Jn, 2, 19). And could speak of Lacanian philosophers; more appropriately, they could remember that the Antichrist, as such, must speak exactly as Christ. His speech he calls discourse has nothing to do, he looks absolutely, he speaks of the same things, by using the same terms, and that because he has no relationship with him.
The only difference with John, is that modern, not believing in the finite, do not believe in Doomsday. If the Antichrist and Christ continues the disappearance of one of the other, This is because the time is near: “there are now many antichrists;: whereby we know that it is the last hour”, writes the Apostle (1 Jn, 2, 18). For anti-philosophy and the philosopher, en revanche, times are open, infinitely. In this infinity, their mutual exclusion becomes a reciprocal envelopment; each point one has reversed its correlate in the other; each will turn the dead god and purple shroud.
Jean-Claude Milner, The Work clear, Lacan, Science, philosophy, “The philosophical”, Threshold, pp 146-154.
(18) This is the core meaning of Article “British psychiatry and war” (Evolution psychiatric, 1947, p. 293-312); could read, through praise addressed to England, description of an upcoming opponent: WASP world, subjecting England and the United States together in each country, on behalf of the ideal science, that there was more enemy of free thought. A version of this world: IPA. In 1960, Lacan concluded: “notable deviations in England and America” (Subversion of the Subject, Writings, p. 794); mention of england prohibited recognize here a variant of the termination of the’american way of life.
(19) This text, read at seminar 15 March 1980, is a response to The. Althusser, designated as the “Mr. A., philosopher”. Par contrast, Lacan indicates the title of a work by Tristan Tzara: Mr. Aa, the antiphilosophe. On the proposition notera “philosophy is a finite thing”; it is not unreasonable to interpret: “philosophy has no place in the infinite universe”. I thank François Regnault for drawing my attention to this reference.
(20) Lacan here refers to’Essay on Indifference Lamennais. The reference is found in S., XI, p. 238. Note that the indifference Freudian policy limits that we are not forced to approve; it does not prohibit marked favor towards the English political system. To be almost the rule among European scholars since the eighteenth century, this bias is not without silliness and contains the seeds some later developments. Cf. Supra, n. 18.