hello, just checkin

    Comment by lucky — April 26, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

    hello lucky, was it an earthquake that happened in here?

    Comment by alice — April 26, 2007 @ 11:10 pm

    alice - if you mean the earth opened and swallowed some messages I think you are right

    Comment by violet — April 26, 2007 @ 11:56 pm

    we were talking about the pauses - silence in the messageboard - and now we have the erased - blanks in the messageboard - do they make for the memory that doesn’t remember?

    Comment by paul — April 27, 2007 @ 1:01 am

    seems pale now

    Comment by Sol — April 27, 2007 @ 11:13 am

    Hello, I am working on a paper that highlights Lacanian concepts found in Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone… does anyone know if the articles/essays in Lacanian Ink are availble online? Or can one only access them by buying the physical copies of the journals? thanks, alana

    Comment by alana — April 29, 2007 @ 2:18 am

    alana - one can only access them by buying the physical copies of the journals.

    Comment by admin — April 29, 2007 @ 5:16 am

    Hello everybody. Can anybody point me in the right direction to an interview with Antonio Negri and Michael Haardt that I saw on this site. Thanks for your help

    Comment by Terry1 — April 30, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

    It’s on the blue symptom.

    Comment by lucky — April 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm

    Michael Hardt teaches at Duke University. Search for his email address in Duke’s directory. Reaching him is the best way to contact Negri, who commutes between Paris and Milano.

    Comment by rupert — April 30, 2007 @ 9:55 pm

    Does anyone have any experience of, ideas about, or psychoanalytic
    references to, puerperal psychosis?
    Likewise to hysterical or ‘phantom’ pregnancy in men when they are
    about to become fathers?/ thanks

    Comment by Sol — May 3, 2007 @ 8:18 am

    Much as I know pueperal psychosis is an illness that comes-along with the birth of a baby. In a light form you may call it baby blues — in a severe form it is puerperal psychosis. And between the two there is depression - the kind called postnatal depression

    Comment by violet — May 3, 2007 @ 7:23 pm

    Yes thankyou Violet, but when you have, for instance, a very energetic
    psychosis which arises a few minutes after delivery, in which the mother
    does not recognize the baby as a baby but as an object she must
    dispose of, or kill, and she has no history of psychosis,
    how to understand this?

    Comment by Sol — May 3, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

    Sol - along a psychoanalytic practice you may happen to encounter the kind of patients with “particular” symptoms… which you watch over, specially when the patient faces extra-ordinary circumstances. Say for instance the people that hurt themselves: burn, cut their body, and this is how they are left left with the certain scar: aren’t they already compromising the body to the an extreme which could degenerate in something else? Again, the analysis should stop him/her from doing it….. but the logics are still there - you ask and you get the absurd answer… - Why wouldn’t I do it for this one, if I did it for this other one who isn’t that nice -.
    What I think is that there are potential psychosis which may never incur in an outbreak if the triggering element doesn’t come across. Giving birth could be relevant to the actual outbreak. I think

    Comment by violet — May 5, 2007 @ 4:52 am

    the problems of maintenance with the forum are a consequence of the precarious way in which we installed the system - we were not sure it would work.
    we will be fixing it as soon as possible.

    Comment by admin — May 7, 2007 @ 1:44 am

    I need lacan’s seminer on ‘Anxiety, ‘Transference’ and ‘Hamlet’(Ornicar) for my literature critique. please help!!!!!!!

    Comment by erkan — May 7, 2007 @ 3:04 am

    dear admin please write me if you (or somebody) can help me.

    Comment by erkan — May 7, 2007 @ 3:07 am

    So Violet, the trigger has some meaning, not unconscious, but of the body
    (and the baby) as Other, and is too much, or leaves too little?
    ‘meaning’ is possibly the wrong word, for me, perhaps some
    meaning, but for the mother, say, the effect?
    Maybe ‘the mother’ is the wrong term too, the one who
    experienced a literal tearing open..a violent dividing..or whatever it was.

    This is not an accurate description of a real person by the way.

    Comment by Sol — May 7, 2007 @ 4:24 am

    Sol - Lacan said of women that they are not perverse beacause what they do with giving birth is already so gross that it cannot be sorted out

    Comment by violet — May 8, 2007 @ 2:21 am


    Comment by Sol — May 8, 2007 @ 2:50 am

    Sol - if the case is psychosis there is no Other… right?

    Comment by violet — May 8, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

    well, I think that other things stand in
    the place of the other
    the world with psychosis; the body with
    and pose the problem
    but no, not as spoken.
    thanks for yr thoughts violet

    Comment by sol — May 8, 2007 @ 7:30 pm

    In “welcome to the desert of the real” Zizek presents an interesting example of “cutters” seeking a return to the real from semblence with the bodily sense of “real” being a perceived point of accesibility experienced most forcefully through the act of cutting (and the associated blood).
    Could the act of giving birth have broken that boundary so violently that to seek its repression would bring on an immediate need to “destroy the evidence” so to speak?

    Comment by scottmartin49 — May 9, 2007 @ 10:35 am

    scott - what comes to mind is the analyst him/herself as “cutter”… ” seeking a return to the real… a perceived point of accesibility experienced most forcefully through the act of cutting….”
    we have a body of words, right? then the cut of the session, liable to empty those words of “meaning” - meaning as the associated blood - the words will become signifiers… as they engage the subject, the subject of the uncs — new meaning

    Comment by violet — May 10, 2007 @ 12:52 am

    I have problem with enter to this site via GPRS WAP.
    Please, help me.

    Best regards.

    Comment by bloggdad — May 10, 2007 @ 12:33 pm

    and the fundamental fantasy, instead of a generic subject, has a particular one..

    Comment by Sol — May 11, 2007 @ 10:15 pm

    Sol - what makes for the difference in subject - or what identifies the particular subject against the generic one?

    Comment by alice — May 12, 2007 @ 2:18 am

    the difference between the analyst and the analysand..
    when the analyst refuses to be objet a
    the other part of the sentence requires attention..
    the grammatical subject as well as uncs subject
    and so perhaps I refer to the name of the subject beyond identification
    I don’t know, what might?

    violet: i like the thinking of the difference between the “meaning” and
    the (new) meaning in your comment (24)
    I have not thought of signification as ongoing and
    retroactive in this way, as effective in so far as there has been uncs
    engagement, as a deferred action, in Freud’s terms,
    as interpretation acting itself as a trauma to the repeated,
    as installing a gap in the gap..this comment of yours is very enriching

    Comment by Sol — May 12, 2007 @ 2:52 am

    Sol - why would the analyst refuse to be objet a…. isn’t objet a his actual place in the structure,
    again what makes for the division of the subject? Thus the grammatical subject - the topic -
    the unconscious subject emerging in an other scene, the name of subject….

    Comment by alice — May 12, 2007 @ 8:33 pm

    Sol - what you say is very flattering…
    I love the idea that my line on the body of words may contribute the actual intellectual excitement you are telling me about

    Comment by violet — May 12, 2007 @ 10:49 pm

    but alice i think the analysand makes of
    the analyst or his place - an unsaid object - one who always..
    the analyst is ready to take that place
    is there for that
    but once it begins being said
    the analyst dodges and keeps moving
    refusing to be this object
    building anxiety perhaps
    until the analysand says ok
    you are not it
    it is something else that i keep saying
    ‘another scene’
    and you/i are different..
    But as i have said before i know more
    of Freud than Lacan, and objet a is difficult for me.

    Comment by Sol — May 12, 2007 @ 11:13 pm

    go serbia!

    Comment by Sol — May 13, 2007 @ 7:49 am

    this is my story:
    “the unsaid object - - one who always..” can well fit the Master (analysis is supposed to hysterize the analyzand)
    till ithe analyst fits the Other. till it further fits the objet a - as such he trascends the Other…
    now the analyst is the dummy - silence - and the cause of the desire, which should divide the subject, that now let’s go of the Master signifiers
    which the analyst is prone to hear (this his S2 knowledge) - errors, slips of the tongue that brake the words… that lead directly to the other scene.

    Comment by alice — May 14, 2007 @ 3:23 am

    in the midst of a eurovision dinner my nephew added
    the serbian comment (I was actually hoping for ukraine)

    and thanks alice

    Comment by Sol — May 14, 2007 @ 5:14 am

    Hello, I am working on a literary criticism paper and I need some references about the “self history” (s’historier) notion in Lacan’s work. I have already find something in “Les psychoses”. Could you help me further more? Please email me to iliapap@lit.auth.gr. Thank you in advance.

    Comment by Flo — May 14, 2007 @ 7:04 am

    Sol, regarding objet(a),re: Freud; Isn’t it basicly the same as “das ding”? Scott

    Comment by scottmartin49 — May 14, 2007 @ 10:31 am

    Sol, am still wondering about those perceptions of ‘triggering’ related to childbirth and Violet’s extraordinary response (19) and what follows. It was too interesting to interrupt, but afterwards, thought of De Kooning’s women, but then for some reason, the changes that occur when this artist begins to paint his way into alzheimers at the end.

    Comment by Chris Sands — May 15, 2007 @ 2:38 am

    With Josefina A. in LI 14 Willem de Kooning paints the ramble of woman’s mutilation and Jacques Lacan tells the story. ” Woman 1, Woman 2… Lacan’s woman is being systematically dismembered as she gets deprived of yet another part. So she reaches the point of annihilation. Formerly the love object and the obscure cause of the desire - a lost object, she’ll walk throughout seminar XX in a not-whole, non-existent apparel. Again she will at once be the symptom.”

    Comment by xxxx — May 16, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

    xoxo - tha symptom of man?

    Comment by xoxo — May 18, 2007 @ 3:38 am

    yes xoxo, if the idea of the symptom is that around it you structure - inexistence is what man chooses to structure his life around

    Comment by violet — May 19, 2007 @ 4:55 am

    But then ‘inexistence’ in the sense that Alain Badiou uses it skirts the little ’sublimations’ that Gerard Wajcman refers to in his essay ‘Desublimation’. Little elevations against a backdrop of comtemporary symptoms and the sinthome, which is never mentioned in an essay that seems to trace the use and the relevance of a particular term. At the end of this text in LacInk 29, GW links the position of the artist and psychoanalysis and I know that Marie-Hlne Brousse referred to this linking of the work of contemporary art and contemporary psychoanalysis in a talk recently. My question has to do with the ties that come with late Lacan. Does it say, what the signifier lacks is made up for by the object and vice versa - in a world of desublimation and inexistence? GW speaks of the context of sublimations, but does art + psychoanalysis (Badiou) or psychoanalysis + art (GW) speak to a lack of lack or a generalised foreclosure and what may be the case with contemporary conditions?

    Comment by Chris Sands — May 20, 2007 @ 6:15 am

    a signifier as such is not lacking — a signifier IS an empty word

    Comment by alice — May 20, 2007 @ 4:24 pm

    What might be implied at the end of ‘Desublimation’ compares two positions and perhaps I was writing with the other position in mind. In this sense, couldn’t we say, the artist experiences signifier and object as lacking? But when GW writes ‘Psychoanalysts have several reasons to sympathize with these desublimators of art, who are in some way colleagues’ (LacInk p.111), I wonder what is displaced where both positions are concerned. Rather than wanting to conflate two positions, my question has to do with the roles we play. For example, the artist who also works as a therapist or the clinician whose work is accessible outside clinical work. In his essay, GW continues, ‘But also, because today the dimension of an interpretive art is emerging, psychoanalysts and artists are in some way rivals’.

    Comment by Chris Sands — May 21, 2007 @ 4:20 am

    what makes for the artist to experience signifier and object as lacking… does it have to do with the creative process?

    Comment by alice — May 24, 2007 @ 5:20 am

    you’re object a is showing

    Comment by violet2 — May 26, 2007 @ 4:01 am

    so tell me of my objet a, you that cann see it

    Comment by alice — May 26, 2007 @ 4:06 am

    thanks scott

    Comment by Sol — May 27, 2007 @ 1:10 am

    Sol - do we have a Scott in here?

    Comment by VIOLET — May 27, 2007 @ 2:46 am

    Aye, we do (36 …)

    Comment by Chris Sands — May 27, 2007 @ 5:22 am

    I forgot the martin..

    Comment by Sol — May 27, 2007 @ 6:40 am

    well Sol, you know how there is no such thing as a ‘rapport sexuel’

    Comment by ediealbert — May 27, 2007 @ 8:20 pm

    but there’s always a good martini

    Comment by Sol — May 27, 2007 @ 10:42 pm

    objet a as surplus jouissance?

    Comment by edialbert — May 27, 2007 @ 11:10 pm

    If you look at the cinema of the 1950’s, the likes of Cary Grant and James Stewart knew all about the rapport following a good martini …

    Comment by Chris Sands — May 28, 2007 @ 6:41 am

    the martinis were fake, they were drinking ice tea, so wasp…

    Comment by rupert — May 28, 2007 @ 7:10 pm

    There is a bit of resonance between ‘a+L symposia’ and here. Here the martinis are fake (and attracting wasps), there we contend with manikins, artifice and allegory, where the allegory and artifice act as a reminder. The presence of ongoing artifice touches a real we’d rather forget or not look at (most of the time).

    Comment by Chris Sands — May 30, 2007 @ 2:29 am

    Do you really think that ongoing artifice (fake martinis or Paris Hilton for that matter) precludes the Real? Or is it a matter of belief, of believing fake martinis for real ones? Somewhere Lacan says that the Real is reality “unknotted” from any belief.

    Comment by rupert — June 1, 2007 @ 2:56 am

    so unknotted belief would touch the real and belief would not?

    Comment by lucky — June 1, 2007 @ 10:38 pm

    Or not touch it maybe but be part of it, with no part

    Comment by lucky — June 1, 2007 @ 10:40 pm

    if mystics are somewhat psychotic involved with the real because of their belief,belief would be entagled with the real, maybe he meant a pure real?

    Comment by lucky — June 2, 2007 @ 1:39 am

    unknotted belief would be belief without belief, or something like diet coke or caffeine free, Zizek’s old theory… still artifice is what dreams are made of, at least in theory…

    Comment by rupert — June 2, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

    Rupert, have made reference to what you say on ‘art and Lacan symposia’ (65)

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 3, 2007 @ 4:00 am

    how about when an analysand attends his analyst’s seminars
    reads his papers
    how might the analysand treat
    the confusions of belief and transference?
    or if not theoretical but other collisions
    such as in a rural locale, coming across each other
    in different ways

    Comment by Sol — June 4, 2007 @ 1:42 am

    This is a big issue for someone living on a small island, and it was also an issue when I did some training some years back now in London. But, in the first place, how does an analysand know of the work of a particular analyst, if not through texts and seminars etc.? If the therapist also works as an artist, what then? Perhaps there are other questions which concern the future of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy against a backdrop of contemporary symptoms and what seems a pervasive lack of lack. What is the work of sessions and where does it take place? A little while ago, I texted my daughter, who’s on a coach somewhere in Australia, which is the other end of the world as far as I’m concerned. Don’t we have to reconfigure our loneliness, rediscover a live encounter … how do we meet, and when we do what are we asking and what does the other know? What are confusions of belief and transference to a Joycean symptom?

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 4, 2007 @ 2:34 am

    CS - “...and what does the other know? ” Isn’t this is the very question? For decades a classical joke has circulated among Lacanians to exemplify the key role of the Other’s knowledge: a man who believes himself to be a grain of seed is taken to a mental institution where the doctors do their best to convince him that he is not a seed but a man. When he is cured (convinced that he is not a grain of seed but a man) and is allowed to leave the hospital , he immediately comes back trembling. There is a chicken outside the door and he is afraid that it will eat him. “My dear fellow,” says his doctor, “you know very well that you are not a grain of seed but a man.” “Of course I know that,” replies the patient, “but does the chicken know it?” Therein resides the true stake of psychoanalysis tratement: it is not enough to convince the patient about the the unconscious truth of this symptoms, the unconscious itself must be brought to assume the truth.

    Comment by violet — June 9, 2007 @ 1:49 am

    and how do you that, how do you bring the unconscious to assume the truth?

    Comment by paul — June 11, 2007 @ 3:52 am

    and who is Perfume?
    and what does Perfume know?

    Comment by Sol — June 11, 2007 @ 6:11 am

    It’s clear perhaps that at a time of evaluation (evidence based practice), regulation, accountability, even surveillance, that there is data, statistics and the rest. With medicine, policing, education, management … … etc., ‘information’ is part of a new mastery or discourse of the master. CBT., for example, discounts the knowledge of the therapist or the efficacy of psychotherapies and a ’subject supposed to know’ in favour of ’scientific knowledge’. If psychoanalytic subversion begins with the hysteric, shouldn’t we close in on a new set of questions or demands??

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 11, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

    I like what Jacqueline Rose says Paul, that
    you wouldn’t (”bring the unconscious
    to assume the truth”)
    but like the road sign for a road that
    is not there anymore,
    one day an analysis
    is over, and the unconscious knows
    (my reading of a couple of
    essays in On not being able to sleep)

    Comment by Sol — June 11, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

    Are you suggesting Chris that the pursuit of ’scientific knowledge’, materialist axioms, is an hysterical demand? If so i’d be fascinated to see the notion developed.
    Your ongoing struggles remind me of Leonard Cohen ‘they sentenced me to twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within’
    Isn’t gnosis, however arrived at, always a potential threat, as, when asked “What did He say to you?”, Thomas replied, “If I told you, you would kill me.”
    Thanks for your company dears x

    Comment by jampa — June 11, 2007 @ 8:51 pm

    ….much as scientific knowledge', materialist axioms can stand for certainty they well fit an hysterical demand, right? and by the way jampa, we missed you

    Comment by violet — June 12, 2007 @ 3:52 am

    You’re very kind Violet. I miss you too, in an object a kinda way, sadly.
    May i go back to the “real unknotted from any belief”? For ‘belief’ read ’superstition’, superstitious reifications, where a simple emptiness of intrinsic existence is all, and sufficient, no surplus, no lack. Don’t blame me, ’twere Lucky talking about mystics and a ‘pure real’ what done it!

    Comment by jampa — June 12, 2007 @ 10:14 pm

    Hi, does anyone have contact details as in an email address or university department where I can contact Joel Dor?

    Comment by Denise — June 13, 2007 @ 1:02 pm

    Hi, does anyone have contact details for Joel Dor? Hi Chris, Long time!

    Comment by Denise — June 13, 2007 @ 1:12 pm

    I’m afraid Joel Dr died quite a while ago

    Comment by paul — June 13, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

    jampa - how is an objet a, in a kinda way, sad?

    Comment by violet — June 15, 2007 @ 1:20 am

    From grains of truth so eloquently put, we seem to have slipped into the lack of desire … but I blame it on Tracy Emin, not coming up with new work for the Venice Biennale. Not that I’ve been, but there are snip-its here and there in the media. Upstaged by Sophie Calle perhaps, who bases her show on a text sent to her by her ex-boyfriend (saying she’s dumped). I wish I knew a way of learning to speak French …

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 17, 2007 @ 4:52 am

    ps. re Sophie Calle’s show, it was email not text.

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 17, 2007 @ 4:59 am

    violet: Not objet a as cause of desire, an eros within the limits of love properly recognised, but objet a as cause of lack, anxiety and sorrow
    Perhaps Chris is trying then to show me how to enjoy desiring an impossible object rather than grieve the want of it?

    Comment by jampa — June 17, 2007 @ 11:03 pm

    A little invisibly perhaps, (this isn’t a dating site) i was seeking to flatter violet, and add my mom-de-web to the list of her admirers

    Comment by jampa — June 18, 2007 @ 12:06 am

    objet a as cause of lack, anxiety and sorrow...” don’t lack, anxiety and sorrow well fit the components of desire… as in, you desire what you do not have?
    and can can you tell us of the difference between ” to enjoy desiring an impossible object rather than grieve the want of it?

    Comment by violet — June 20, 2007 @ 4:26 pm

    I am flattered, jampa… and very happy you add your mom-de-web - whatever that implies… thank you!

    Comment by violet — June 20, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

    Ok, i’m back on the dancefloor, jumpin like jack flash while love washes over me, the love and desire of quiescent intelligence sits this one out so graciously thank-you so askance and angled for the symptom but so warm and desiring… what’s an obsessive/hysteric to do?

    Comment by jampa — June 23, 2007 @ 9:57 am

    To be the object of an other’s love can be difficult. A man tells a woman that he loves her but what is she to do? With children a certain I love you mom seems possible and mom knows there are a million jobs to do while she remembers a loving moment, but the Lacanian world seems to have moved away from all this. Lacan talks about the gaze in Sem. X1 and perhaps expressions of love can be a bit like the gaze (or involve the gaze). In the seminar, Lacan compares ‘looking’ and the gaze and suggests looking (with all its ‘lack-ing’) is only possible when we are no longer subject to the gaze. With the function of art in mind I think Lacan refers to a certain ‘laying down of the gaze’.

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 24, 2007 @ 7:32 am

    ‘a certain laying down of the gaze’ a gazeless sight, how beloved of the real! Don’t we all crave it! (If i could tell every girl i had craved that i longed to just see her- just lookin, seein ya darl-, surely she would just graxe on ome!) Lacan’s mojo workin’ its non-magic (Schneidermann, ‘Lacan, The Chick Magnet’) and the residuum? Pleasure sure, but still the world’s sorrow. Compassion

    Comment by jampa — June 26, 2007 @ 9:08 am

    What is compassion implicated in the real someway?

    Comment by lucky — June 28, 2007 @ 11:48 pm

    It’s a dark summer’s early morning this side of the Atlantic and through the rain that hasn’t come yet I can hear the tide over the houses. My cat sits on the kitchen table next to the laptop and it seems summer’s an impossibility this side of ‘global warming’; it’s been raining for two months and England’s’ flooded out’. Have made a few slight ’suggestions’ on symposia next door re. exhaustion. We’ve often pondered gaps in the energy here, but if the work of messageboard and symposia amounts to a new subjectivity sometimes (??), are we increasingly ‘pooped out’?

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 29, 2007 @ 2:26 am

    It is a stormy winter’s evening here CS and I am not
    as exhausted as I was (thankyou), but I have been pondering
    your comment (83) sometimes over the last few days.
    It was an intense co-incidence, (though co-incidence?)
    when I read it a while after you posted.
    So I have been thinking about love and the gaze, at the end,
    and wondering too about how the unconscious operates here on
    the message board, for it does, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Sol — June 29, 2007 @ 4:06 am

    Sol, aren’t you turning the unconscious into a sign in this sense?
    For a long time Lacanian literature proved a revelation for me, now I tip-toe towards the Lacanian world in person, a poor specimen!
    Quite recently, I came across something JA Miller wrote about two versions of the unconscious. I take it, the Freudian version somehow makes it’s way from the symbolic towards the real, while another version, linked to the sinthome, makes a little progress in the other direction. More recently still, I came across reference to three versions of the unconscious and reference to an imaginary unconscious.
    If this makes a little sense, how do we begin to make sense of a virtual unconscious?
    With art, the virtual world seems to short circuit the possibilities beyond an artist’s ’self analysis’. I think, the analyst, MARIE-HLNE BROUSSE privileges the artist’s ‘analysis’ at a time when the sinthome makes particular sense, but galleries and museums seem even more like places of religious significance, when we contend with ‘the scale’ and ‘perspectives’ of virtual reality.
    If the virtual unconscious is a pale shadow of a discourse that changed the world, in an age of church-like galleries and ‘evidence based practice’, can it still be a place for ‘well saying’ refugees … ?

    Comment by Chris Sands — June 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

    not a sign CS but dynamic:
    the early topography.
    but do people think the uncs operates
    here? and what does that say about presence?
    Was it Joel D’or who first suggested that
    it was the presence of Fleiss served Freud in his
    self analysis? But who are we here?
    Aren’t we all clearly and confusedly imaginary..
    or does technology allow a honing, a stripping
    back, which somehow makes for another possibility?
    I think the imaginary and the real are very close,
    and that the 4 discourses demonstrate
    the flux, and ongoing desires to move in many
    away from/towards is sometimes the same thing

    Comment by Sol — June 29, 2007 @ 10:30 pm

    I was thinking of this privileging of the artist’s position particularly, but also thinking about the limitations (separately) of virtual world and art world. Behind this, was the thought that the art process, in the sense that Lacan describes it in seminar eleven, can be somehow equivalent to an analysis (for the artist). This linking has something to do with tiredness as well.
    My version of an impossible profession, means I spend half of the week working as a therapist and half of the week working in my studio. It feels a fortunate position, which might not last, but what has surprised me so much in the recent months, is the tiredness I feel after painting. For some reason this doesn’t happen with film and writing. I am sometimes able to connect these different forms of practice, but would like to begin to relate this ‘tiring work’ to some of best descriptions of clinical work I’ve read. The ‘Courtil papers’, often descriptions of work with autistic children, are descriptions of work with young people who exhaust themselves in the course of their daily lives, working towards very small measures of subjectivity.

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 1, 2007 @ 11:03 am

    I love the piece about the shoes, in the Courtil papers.

    Comment by Sol — July 4, 2007 @ 12:37 am

    testing testing…

    Comment by admin — July 4, 2007 @ 2:51 am

    whose is the piece about the shoes in the Courtil papers?

    Comment by violet — July 4, 2007 @ 3:01 am

    Monique Marot’s ‘The shoes at the Antenna’

    Comment by Sol — July 4, 2007 @ 3:21 am

    thanks Sol

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 4, 2007 @ 3:57 am

    Sol, have tried to make a little sense of my ‘tiredness’ on symposia (70).
    When I write here or there, it’s often after writing something else (somewhere else). Sometimes, it’s finding threads for a pervasive nonsense and when I retreat to my studio, it’s sometimes looking for unlikely solace.

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 9, 2007 @ 4:30 am

    CS, I empathise with your tiredness.
    I used to make art for a living, doing things that
    other people requested. When I would sit
    down later at my table I couldn’t do anything
    else, I had been there too long and I grew confused
    at who I was doing it for (!).
    I also work as a therapist in a small country town, and
    sometimes, after 9 years, seeing clients
    in other contexts, or now seeing their children
    or other family, and the trials of having many hats,
    is so much extra work. It’s hard, deciding what
    to maintain, and how. Luckily, I have no pressures
    regarding evidence base, as you have referred to,
    and I have other work that allows me to explore
    my own interests.
    I travel 6 hours a week for my analysis and supervision
    something that for years I thought was impractical,
    and after 3 years, sometimes that feels too much too.
    Strangely, this messageboard sometimes
    gives me some unlikely solace.
    So thanks to you and everyone

    Comment by Sol — July 9, 2007 @ 5:28 am

    Sol, Are you in Australia?

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 9, 2007 @ 7:07 am


    Comment by Sol — July 9, 2007 @ 7:09 am

    Sol - do you and jampa know each other personally? I mean since you live in the same country and you have interests in common…

    Comment by violet — July 10, 2007 @ 8:13 am

    No. It’s a big country.
    and a small world.

    Comment by Sol — July 10, 2007 @ 8:27 am

    There’s an interesting photo on the blog page. A house of glass for an analyst who writes about contemporary art and an intimate space …

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 10, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

    Yes, CS, the house of glass is in opposite to the Chelsea Piers, between 18th and 19th Streets - a nine-story glass building… funny what you say about Wajman’s writing in concern with contemporary art and an intimate space ...” with no doubt his intimate space happens to have this ex-timity quality

    Comment by violet — July 11, 2007 @ 1:48 pm

    hello, zizek gave a lecture (”Can One Really Tolerate a Neighbor”) at Tilton Gallery last November(2006 - see lacan.com blog). In it he quotes(see part 1) a text by Mao Zedong written or spoken in 1955 - as Zizek refers to as: “why the chinese people shouldn’t be afraid of the american atomic bomb”.
    I am curious to know where this quote comes from and if there is a text in print in english where one could find it.

    Comment by theo — July 13, 2007 @ 11:50 pm

    theo- perhaps the University of Ljubjana offers more direct access to Zizek and his sources
    unless he’s popped in here and wants to stick his head up

    I love how gently people have unveiled themselves here, and how carefully the last of the seven is protected.
    Its a line from a poor poem i wrote years ago ‘the seven elliptoid process’
    That dinner party Sol, remember?
    Whom to invite, apart from friends here?

    Comment by jampa — July 17, 2007 @ 10:12 am

    … to invite and make visible. Is visibility, cognizability, the lifting of the last veil, a myth or a fact here?

    Comment by jampa — July 17, 2007 @ 10:24 am

    Melanie Klein and Edvard Munch might make good pair,
    Primo Levi and Duras.
    Marilyn Monroe and Anna Freud, for a bit of gossip.
    And Breur and Anna O.
    I’d like to invite Heraclitus and Heidegger,
    Charcot and Janet. Throw Lacan in for (a good) arguments sake.
    (Dinner of the dead)
    And what would we serve?

    I never noticed there were 7..

    Comment by Sol — July 19, 2007 @ 4:36 am

    .. and Saussure and Freud getting Frankenstinian sewing Voltaire’s electrified frogs legs to a body politic, arms against a sea of trouble and a throbbing head of stae, apple in mouth, all braised in frangelico plus de lime and served in hell’s handbasket… Beckett and Bresson serve Gunter Grass’s head with eels, while Hieronymous Bosch and the Dalai Lama say grace

    Comment by jampa — July 19, 2007 @ 8:47 am

    I still can’t move away from that Mao and the bomb question … and am still thinking about that photo.
    There would be an academic response to the bomb enquiry, but have been writing a little about noises (and pictures) meant to ‘cover up’ what Freud calls ‘the primal scene’.
    My question then would be, did Mao imagine an atom bomb in the middle of the night? Is ‘the Ship of Glass’ a ghostly Titanic ninety years later, with two analysts instead of Kate Winslet and Leanardo De Caprio?

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 19, 2007 @ 5:18 pm

    Could someone join me on symposia page for a few days?

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 19, 2007 @ 5:20 pm

    Do you guys actually believe that Lacanian analysis actually ever helps anyone? Isn’t it nearly a crime–or at least malpractice–to treat people with neurological disorders like autism or Tourette’s with psychoanalytic methods? How are you different from Christian fundamentalists who want to drive out demons? At least there’s some empirical evidence that exorcism works in primitive societies. . . .Yeah, yeah, I’m an hysteric. . yeah, yeah.

    Comment by Jim Aune — July 22, 2007 @ 8:20 pm

    Well, provocative stuff perhaps. In the blog section of this site, there’s the transcript of a lecture given by JA Miller called ‘Lacan’s Nightingale’ and it refers to different senses of the term ’subjectivity’. It describes a stepping back indicative of what Lacan’s means by the ’subject’ and subjectivity. This is sometimes the effect of science and Miller talks about the experience of this at a clinical level. With an autistic child, the shift towards a subjectivity may amount to an entering into the world in some way. I would refer you to the ‘Courtil papers’ available online, Jim, but you probably have little time to read.

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 23, 2007 @ 1:27 am

    In Lynch’s ‘Lost Highway’, as they make love in the desert, he declares “I want you” and she (not really a ’she’ but ‘woman which doesn’t exist’) replies “You will never ever have me”. I suspect this says something of the feminine ‘other jouissance’ of which she’s supposed to know nothing but how much pain results from the myth of possession and, since female analysts regularly visit and post here, can i ask them please to comment from introspective experience… asking as a mere male

    Comment by jampa — July 30, 2007 @ 1:43 am

    I’m not a female analyst Jampa and so can’t answer your question, but in ‘the Later Lacan’ (ed. Voruz, Wolf) there’s a paper by Pierre-Gilles Gueguen which might interest you. It’s called ‘Women and the Symptom: the Case of the Post Freudians’. It looks at a ‘treatment of the symtom by some women who greatly contributed to psychoanalytic theory’ in the light of a sensitivity to ‘two sides of the symptom’ (’productions emanating from the symbolic, but also a production of jouissance’)

    Comment by Chris Sands — July 30, 2007 @ 2:35 am

    Thank you so much Chris. Off a’shopping again. But violet, alice, perfume? Is the question too confused to answer?

    Comment by jampa — August 1, 2007 @ 12:13 am

    'the seven elliptoid process' What a nice term. Ornament in the field of vision’.

    Comment by terry1 — August 5, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

    jampa - of “Lost Highway” and of “Mulholland Drive” according to Zizek they are two versions of the same >>Lynch sets the two dimensions - reality and fantasy, side by side, horizontally as it were<<
    In Lost Highway, Zizek considers an upper middle class suburban reality - the hero married to a woman that doesn’t respond properly to his advances they have sexual intercourse and he fails… now what he gets from her is a patronizing pat on the shoulder… he kills her, he is thrown into jail, he enters the fantasy space - now he is somebody else, and there is the blonde that praises him - the hero - in the fantasy space the obstacle is exteriorized - some man threatens him, if he touches the blonde he is doomed… but towards the end of the fantasy the woman also avoids the hero “you will never have me.” I think the film is about feminine desire as what keeps the desire going after the actual feminine quality to it… no easy task…

    Comment by violet — August 6, 2007 @ 12:27 am

    Because what Badiou calls ‘fidelity’ to desire, or the unconscious, involves antagonism, conflict?
    Somewhere I read the unconscious is antagonistic
    and I think it wasn’t by chance that Lacan made Oedipus’s daughter into an icon for psychoanalysis.

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 6, 2007 @ 6:31 am

    ANTIgonistic then

    Comment by violet — August 6, 2007 @ 12:52 pm

    I feel like saying if you like, but am not sure what you are saying Violet.

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 6, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

    CS - you say of Oedipus’ daughter…… and there you go, antagonism, antagonistic… she is called ANTIGONE… this is how I came up with: ANTIgonistic

    Comment by violet — August 6, 2007 @ 11:52 pm

    thanks Violet, seems I wanted to change the words to suit a case.

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 7, 2007 @ 4:21 am

    CS - I think what happened is you had Oedipus's daughter name in mind, though you did not pronounce it/write it down, and this is how it appeared otherwise…

    Comment by violet — August 7, 2007 @ 8:10 pm

    Violet, you mean as a homophony?

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 8, 2007 @ 4:08 pm

    antigoni stic /by her dad

    Comment by Sol — August 9, 2007 @ 11:46 am

    anti gone to me

    Comment by lucky — August 9, 2007 @ 12:00 pm

    anti gone…….. like in, where did CS’ anti go?

    Comment by violet — August 9, 2007 @ 12:27 pm

    You are all mean, of course!
    And language is so powerful.
    Curiously, was sorting out a text for a film today and Antigone’s stic(k) or being stuck with Antigone seems to have been part of it. The text makes reference to an excerpt from ‘the Magic Flute’.

    ‘If I think about the opera, which seems a take on pantomime and ’secret societies’, it also has to do with a politics surrounding the work of art, over two hundred years later. If you want to succeed 'best stick to what you know'.
    I include the paragraph above in the first 'cut' of 'the Morning After Bloomsday', but worry about the last sentence.' It seems a little reactionary, but can the reference work for Mozart and contemporary art, generally or in a specific context? I can cope with pantomime, but should I join a secret society to show the work properly - and one day be able to afford a night out with Constanze?’

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 9, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

    there’s always the chance that a secret society
    might join you CS.

    if you want to suc-ceed - i wonder if Antigone
    took her father’s name to her grave

    everyone it seems had only one name?
    (the house of..)
    Is that similar in opera?
    is that a link with pantomine?
    or stereotypies?

    I don’t know.
    I went to look for your next installment CS
    but you haven’t posted it..

    Comment by Sol — August 10, 2007 @ 9:20 am

    Will do my best to update my own website as soon as poss. (and there’s a link to it on symposia), but when Mozart’s last work featured so much in recent video work, was thinking of masonic references in the Flute and use of pantomime. I was thinking of ’secret societies’ and pantomime as a defence, having reread JA Miller’s ‘Models of Jouissance’ in LacInk 17 (and particularly a description of a jouissance of non-rapport). This ‘best stick to what you know', which is part of a text included in a film, is something I hear locally in various ways, but I wonder whether it’s not also a reference to psychoanalysis.
    Lacan, particularly in his later work, questions assumptions surrounding psychoanalysis and this questioning is also evident with recent work (often found in LacInk), but what I feel drawn to concerns possible foundations for the work of therapy. If we begin with an assumption of jouissance and sinthome, rather than an assumption of signifier and symptom, why does psychoanalysis still retain structures which make the work and training still only possible in cities and when there’s considerable finances?
    If Mozart became a mason because he needed patronage and his efforts are reduced to a sublime pantomime or a pantomime of the sublime, two hundred years later where does the work of art resume, when artists and therapists send each other messages but never meet?

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 11, 2007 @ 3:02 am

    Does anyone know anything about the current background of the lacan.com frontpage (not the splash page)? I was specifically wondering what speech bubbles say. One is obscured by the corresponding image of the current ‘lacanian ink’?

    Comment by al — August 11, 2007 @ 4:08 am

  1. al - this is what it says in the speech bubbles of the contents page art: “It would be nice to do something important” , “something political?”
    still if you want to know more of these artists work go to: http://www.lacan.com/lacinkXXIX10.htm

    Comment by violet — August 12, 2007 @ 2:45 am

  2. thanks violet.

    Comment by al — August 12, 2007 @ 3:56 am

    Have been looking at Bruce Fink’s ‘Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique’. It seems very well written, but I wonder if it lacks a little passion. When LacInk highlights the work of JA Miller, Wajcman, Zizek, Badiou and Josefina, it’s hard to get excited by work which seems a primer. If the discourse of the university is unlike the discourse of the analyst, can psychoanalytic training ‘make do’ without the former?

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 16, 2007 @ 6:24 pm

    Just a little note to Perfume for hosting such a good site. We appreciate your work.

    Comment by Terry1 — August 18, 2007 @ 6:37 pm

    where can i find info on lacan’s take on the beauty mark, macula, mole, etc. or if anyone can clue me in.

    Comment by pc — August 19, 2007 @ 9:45 am

    we do

    Comment by lucky — August 20, 2007 @ 4:29 am

    Thank you Terry1, and thank you lucky!

    Comment by perfume — August 23, 2007 @ 1:37 pm

    are people familiar with this website,
    with audio recordings that
    might be of interest..

    Comment by Sol — August 23, 2007 @ 11:26 pm

    does anyone know anything about a possible etext, that might be floating around, of freuds collected works in german??

    Comment by al — August 25, 2007 @ 6:15 am

    wish I knew about an e-text of freud’s collected works in german

    Comment by violet — August 25, 2007 @ 10:00 pm

    did you all notice we have a site called FORUM where we can upload images?

    Comment by violet — August 28, 2007 @ 12:53 am

    then I wonder whether there couldn’t be a part on forum which could be some kind of annexe for the ‘art + Lacan symposia’?
    Not being able to upload images is always a drawback next door.

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 28, 2007 @ 3:42 am

    of course there can be a part on forum which could be some kind of annexe for the 'art + Lacan symposia'
    http://www.lacan.com/forum.html –> FORUM index—> Why is everybody so shy? ——> Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:41 am

    Comment by violet — August 29, 2007 @ 4:32 am

    Have just set up symposia annexe, but there are limitations uploading images. Images need to be linked to a publically accessible website … will update mine asap.

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 29, 2007 @ 5:19 pm

    yes Chris Sands…?

    Comment by sugar — August 30, 2007 @ 12:56 am

    am sorry sugar, this will take time, in my case, renewing software, finding out how to use it, but uploading possibilities with the new ‘forum’ would make this worthwhile.

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 30, 2007 @ 1:43 am

    it’s so easy, more so they tell you there what to do… yes the images have to be in the internet, I think, I guess, there should be ways to deal with that otherwise… later in the day I’ll find some time to tell you specifically what to do…….

    Comment by sugar — August 30, 2007 @ 12:00 pm

    it’s so easy, more so they tell you there what to do… yes the images have to be in the internet, I think, I guess, there should be ways to deal with that otherwise… later in the day I’ll find some time to tell you specifically what to do…….

    Comment by sugar — August 30, 2007 @ 12:00 pm

    Even if I’ve yet to improve image quality, have updated website (the one attached to symposia), but still can’t do it. So, look forward to any advice on how to post images to forum (’a+L symposia’ annexe).

    Comment by Chris Sands — August 30, 2007 @ 12:56 pm

    dear CS

    this is what you do in the forum:

    the preview won’t show you the image, you have to submit it without seeing it

    Comment by sugar — September 1, 2007 @ 9:02 pm