I came across a sentence in a text advertising a LSNLS event in May. It reads: ‘We have to face the fact that interpretation in psychoanalysis is not the same as what it is in philosophy, religion or therapy.’
And the Lacanian world is so full of ‘inspiration’, which can, I think, be another name for the cause of desire.
Sometimes, I think, that for an artist, psychoanalysis poses problems: and ‘we’ should learn from Lenin or was it Mao, and (sometimes) ‘know’ our enemy better than we ‘know ourselves’, which may have more than a little to do with jouissance in the place of the Other!
But I can take something from Badiou and say that Lacan (and Miller) can’t be ignored, when it comes to inspiration or the possibility that psychoanalysis occupies a unique place. So, for me, the question remains: what is psychoanalysis for the work of art? Can the work ever (in a sense) resemble an analysis?
Jacques Lacan said that art was verbal at a second power. In this sense art makes use of the structure of language without, in most cases, making use of the words themselves.
And this allows for the articulation of truth, without having to deal with the transmission of knowledge.
Psychoanalysis is not art. Thus the S2 - knowledge - attributed to the analyst, even if the analyst doesn’t know much, even if the certain knowledge is semblance.
‘Resembles’ may not have been a good word to use in this instance and I wasn’t looking for some kind of correlation, even if I’m aware of a trace that runs through my own work as an artist. This trace is articulated in some way: (and with an ongoing project) a text seems to follow the pace of so many conversations.
But apart from something that may or may not apparent with this work, there is a what-to-do concerning isolation. As you know, I also work as a therapist and from time to time, (in a political sense) spend much time trying to counteract the effects of isolation (on particular projects). With my energies a little diminished just now, I can look at what is happening where I live and work, but when I go to London (or Paris), I also see the work that so many Lacanian analysts are doing to counteract their own isolation (looking after what’s unique with psychoanalysis).
If desire keeps the work of art going, I wonder how far or how close that desire is to the desire of the analyst working in a session. If there’s a question (for me) somewhere, it has to do with failure, isolation and a direction which has to do with a lacking.
Finding coordinates to match the work of art and analysis may not be important, but the effects of isolation are sometimes hard to bear. I have in mind something Beckett says about carrying on …
It occurred to me afterwards that I was using (at least) two senses of the word ‘isolation’: isolation in terms of an ‘apart-ness’ of projects in the community, which is like the isolation sometimes felt living on a small island + isolating what may be the case with the work (of art, therapy, psychoanalysis)
This reference to art being verbal at a second power reminds me of Gerard Wajcman’s reworking of the gaze in seminar X1 (I think).
Zizek refers to Wajcman’s work in ‘Neighbours and Other Monsters’ (p.178).
‘… Gerard Wajcman recently proposed a Lacanian version of the rise of modern subjectivity. According to Wajcman, the medieval human remained inscribed into the field of the Other’s gaze, into creation under the protection of God’s gaze; this gaze is a secondary version of the original fact that, prior to seeing, we are objects of the Other’s gaze. Against this background, the break of modernity, the rise of the modern subject, equals the emergence of the space of intimacy: the subjects asserts itself as the subject of a gaze who masters the world from a safe distance, from a dark place beyond the Other’s gaze. Unseen, I see. This is what the Cartesian cogito ultimately amounts to: I am insofar as I am not seen, insofar as the core of my being dwells in an ‘intimate’ space that escapes the Other’s public gaze. This exemption is an illusion, however, a screen against the fact that, prior to seeing, I am here for the Other’s gaze.’
- then language and its double?
Lacan’s concept of the sinthome is a key, it seems, to late Lacan, to the Lacan of the letter.
Contemporary art, possibly, looks in the direction of signs, if the sign is in some way a conflation of signifier and letter.
Post-Lacan, the sign may suggest something sinthom-atic, something linked to the intimate space of the artist, in a Wajcman sense; but isn’t the sinthom-atic also fragile, in a post interpretation world? Aren’t we attached to what may or may not be the make-up of our sinthomes?
In this sense, the artist sees two people in a session as a doubling up and this doubling up is linked to a compulsion to collaborate and adopt new disciplines etc: its linked to a defensible or indefensible sinthome
At a certain point both Duchamp and Cage become chess players and with contemporary art, anything from a doubling onwards suggests something sinthom-atic, where the politics of the sinthome involves both stabilization and stagnation …
So, (post sinthome) am a bit wary of art using the structure of language and can link this weariness to Badiou’s assertion that art is somehow subordinate to psychoanalysis. To return to language and its double; is it necessarily the case that art ‘uses the structure of language without necessarily using words’?
My first thought was of the narrator of The Usual Suspects - also ‘Verbal’
in the place of a noun - and then of something Leonard Bernstein said about the genesis of music
being an ‘intensification of speech’. But could you say more about the relationship between
‘verbal at a second power’ and the articulation of truth (rather than the transmission of knowledge)?
there are four corners: a, $, S1, S2…… in the structure of psychoanalysis the analyst impersonates an objet a, and knowledge (S2) - both on a semblance basis.
With art the objet arises in the painting and instead of knowledge what the work-of-art renders is a truth.
CSS - when I say art ‘uses the structure of language without necessarily using words’ I mean the structure of language is always there… whether it uses words or not.
Say it uses words like for instance in Warhol’s Campbell soup, the can still says you are supposed to open it, throw some water inside, salt, what have you… what you know is the sole fact that it lies there on the gallery display shelf emptied those words meaning
before the structure with the letters I wrote up there, there is the 4 places, and these places have names which stand for: agent –> other –> production–> truth , thus with the psychoanalytic discourse, knowledge (S2) falls in the place of truth.
With sexuation, doesn’t Lacan say something about someone in the position of a man preferring (the silence of) the drives, while someone in the position of a woman only wants to talk? So, a non-rapport which concerns the ‘a’ and barred Other: a not wanting to talk and a wanting to talk which leads in the direction of there being no theory or general case … or am I out of my depth?
In practice it seems I am …
Now I should research a dubious position, which is, perhaps, (re. subject positions) the reading (or misreading) of a reading of the difference between the object a and the signifier of the barred Other. I did say I was out of my depth, because I find Lacan’s sexuation formulas so complex.
In a paper called ‘Of Distribution Between the Sexes’, JA Miller says:’Lacan’s thesis is that the jouissance of speech, which is evidently there in the signifier as such, is precisely the feminine supplementary jouissance. It is exactly the jouissance of erotomania, in the sense that it is a jouissance that requires that its object speak.
It is in this sense that it is a jouissance that requires that one pass via love, while jouissance on the male side does not require that it pass via love, it does not require the jouissance of speech’.
(taken from Psychoanalytical Notebooks, p.26)
If JAM is somehow right and I haven’t simply misread something he is saying … and Lacan uses the unfortunate rapport of the preying mantis to make a point about an overwhelming anxiety on one side, then a certain reluctance with regard to speech is surely understandable …
We know how “woman does not exist,” and how Lacan will go as far as to say “Woman does not exist as an entity with full ontological consistency, but only as a symptom of man.” If however we conceive the symptom as it was articulated in Joyce le sinthome—a particular signifying formation which confers on the subject consistency, enabling it to structure its basic, constitutive bearing to jouissance—the entire relationship is reversed. The subject dissolved—it loses the ground under its feet, disintegrates —“woman is a symptom of man,” meaning that man himself exists only through woman qua his symptom—is externalized in his symptom. In other words, man literally exists: his entire being lies “out there,” in woman.
Gosh Violet, I feel like saying - ”what about all these years of ’standing on my two feet’? … I knew it all along! …’
So, sexuation formulas which develop midway (?) through Lacan’s seminars, might be changed after seminar xxiii
and in the light of notions like Miller’s ‘universal clinic of delusion’ etc.
- the case of Jim and Nora Barnacle
is not so exceptional ?
What seems so difficult to assess outside psychoanalysis is this play between the Freudian and Joycean symptom …
if, for example, something radically changes with the advent of the sinthome, why do Lacanians insist on their bearings in the first Lacan?
well the knot of the I R S which has formations of which keep the world together
and show up in a construct such as a woman or a little pattern of behavoir, like every tine somebody does that it drives me crazy..? But arn’t we usually in the midst of knots one after the other like in a chain and all around and if the knot comes undone it is very precarious as in subjective destitution?
To go back to Violet’s comment 53:
what seems missing from an exciting paragraph surely has to do with the ever present need to arrive at some kind of consistency: whether this involves making up an ego or making a name for yourself if you’re Joyce etc. (and if you’re male or female). If this pressure is more or less pronounced (in a time of generalized foreclosure), then how we arrive at a consistency or stabalization concerns the politics of everyday life and much more. When criticism feel like castration, is this like a contemporary aversion to ideology and ideas?
I watched a TV program yesterday about life in Czeckoslavakia during the periods before and after the Prague Spring in 1968, from show trials in the early 1950’s to a blacklisting of activists after ‘68 - and what seemed to be the case in this bygone period seemed not so distant when I think about how institutions and organizations function where I live and work today. The argument might be that late capitalism functions in a more subtle way and if its blacklisting, for example, its now hard to prove.
The concerns of psychoanalysis seem mostly far removed from a philosophy of ‘normalization’ evident with CBT and the like, but if we all ‘make do’ in some way or other, does late Lacan imply the politics of cautious interpretation? Is it sparing interpretation up against an eventual silencing of interpretation, evident with different styles of normalization?
I suppose one solution to interpretation and not being able to write the sexual relation is reference to the emergence of the sinthome and the suggestion perhaps that Joyce finds a jouissance in writing which is, according to Lacan, not exactly phallic jouissance. Vicente Palomera seems to negotiate sexuation in a different way, putting emphasis on how Lacan re-interprets the signifier ‘phallus’ …
CS - of Jim and Nora Barnacle - 15 August, 1904. My dear Nora, It has just struck me. I came in at half past eleven. Since then I have been sitting in an easy chair like a fool. I could do nothing. I hear nothing but your voice. I am like a fool hearing you call me ‘Dear.’ I offended two men today by leaving them coolly. I wanted to hear your voice, not theirs. When I am with you I leave aside my contemptuous, suspicious nature. I wish I felt your head on my shoulder. I think I will go to bed. I have been a half-hour writing this thing. Will you write something to me? I hope you will. How am I to sign myself? I won’t sign anything at all, because I don’t know what to sign myself.
— And in another opportunity: “My sweet little whorish Nora, I did as you told me, you dirty little girl, and pulled myself off twice when I read your letter. I am delighted to see that you do like being f***ed a***ways.” And he implores his “dirty little f***bird” to write back “sweetly, dirtier, dirtier” and closes the letter with “Heaven forgive my madness, Jim.”
I did not put in little stars replacing the letters the letters. I found the letter like that
lucky - Lacan is not so much about knots, not like Laing or Cooper—the English analysts—though there is the famous IRS knotting at the end of analysis, yes…
and about a sintome sometimes more wedded to the drive — the symptom wedded to the drive links to the things you do however you do not want to them, but keep doing them — the symptom more wrapped up in desire is what you want - what you enjoy, and this is the work of analysis, to transform the one into the other…
then following sexuation formulas, did Jim suppose Nora knew something about love?
In a paper called ‘the Hidden Face of the Subject Supposed to Know’ by Jacqueline Nanchen,
”… with the late teaching of Lacan, psychoanalysis demands to be referred to another real than that of science,
‘a real of the beyond of the subject supposed to know’.
The hidden face of the subject supposed to know, its face of ‘constituting’ anxiety, refers to that beyond.
The analyst, so as to disturb the defense, has to make himself (used to) the strange”.
(foootnote: ”the analyst has to ‘make himself’ with the strange, ie. not only get used to it
but make use of it - the Unheimlich - in his practice”)
CS - beyond: I tend to think what stands for beyond in the analyst’s place is the objet a in that it goes beyond - trascends the Other - as he embodies silence, as he impersonates death -like the dummy in the bridge game … maybe these 2 “semblants” could stand for the real of the beyond of the subject you make reference to
Both Lacan and Ronnie Laing look at knots around the same time and Laing wrote a small book called Knots in 1970.
Curiously Laing’s work seems to reach an impasse around this time, but retroactively, his work challenges perceptions surrounding ‘mental illness’, diagnosis and treatment.
His ghost gnaws away at what ties ‘mental health services’ (in the Uk) to a medical model, CBT and a compulsion to evaluate and I’m sure he would have approved the development of the CPCT’s in France.
JILL I’m upset you are upset
JACK I’m not upset
JILL I’m upset that you’re not upset that I’m upset that you’re upset.
JACK I’m upset that you’re upset that I’m not upset that you’re upset that I’m upset, when I’m not.
JILL You put me in the wrong
JACK I am not putting you in the wrong
JILL You put me in the wrong for thinking you put me in the wrong.
JACK Forgive me
JACK I’ll never forgive you for not forgiving me
I think Jacqueline Nanchen is looking for a way to quilt to the Freudian unconscious to a real, which is not the real of science; to the object a as Thing ; to a stranger’s ‘wings of desire … (?)
of the forum and the long passwords you cannot remember. To change this, enter the forum with your name and old password –once inside put the arrow on your name till it becomes yellow, press and it will take you to a page where you can see your profile, go to EDIT, and there you find NEW PASSWORD twice, put it in, update…. and you are done
In view of http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=99
‘Anglo-Saxon empiricism’, since it is the unreflective, plain-speaking commonsense on which the British commentariat pride themselves that has led to the UK falling prey to the tyranny of another kind of abstraction, that of finance capital’:
Laing seems topical again:
symptom of a symptom of a symptom …
hello Sol, I don’t know the answer to your question, but it seems to ask another about the origins of ‘present concerns’. Did we start talking about the ecephalic only to ‘lose our heads’ with sexuation etc?
Have looked for Jim and Nora’s letters online, but Violet, is there some published correspondence?
I still have in mind Laing after looking at the Lacan.com text, ‘A Return to Communism’ http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=99, but if Laing’s ‘knots’ can be somehow symptomatic of an Anglo Saxon refusal to look at what underpins fragile capitalism, then don’t we all have to take tautologies more seriously? Saving the banks is seen as a temporary remedy, as if everything collapses if the banks collapse, but this patching-up also mirrors what goes on with mental health (in the UK): CBT is a stopgap, not taken too seriously, but a response to emergency at a time when capital feeds a a stop gap response to ‘terror’.
Perhaps Laing’s work reaches an impasse in the early 1970’s because he underestimates ‘the enemy’ …
Have started watching a new French film channel (with English subtitles) available in the Uk. and last night watched a film called ‘Burnt Out’. Beautifully made, through skillful narrative; the film looks at the consequences of too much work and too much pressure in a particular workplace. Resistance comes at enormous cost to individuals and this resistance is masked as ‘burn out’. The film seems to pose a question about fear: The hero pays the price of resistance, but, at the end, is able to convey something to his son about fear before going to prison. Have I strayed too far from the ecephallic? Does Zizek question an all too easy separation of desire and drive? Do we sometimes look driven when we’re not giving up on our desire? Laing famously died playing tennis, suffering a heart attack but refusing a doctor.
I didn’t know that about migraine, Sol…
I found about the acephallic —the formula issues from the “mouth” of no one (Nemo), from a “subject outside the subject,” from a Freud who has broken away from others, from his body, and who has broken through his ego and its image - both pure resistance, this is a Freud who is acephalic or headless because the head (the ego) is Imaginary. The Freudian notion of the unconscious is indeed that of the acephalic subject, of a subject who no longer has an ego, and yet is the subject who speaks …
Jacques finds a way to tie RSI’s together
and Ronnie tries to find a knotty way of unraveling the connection between Anglo Saxon empiricism and mental health …
but despite Lacan’s brilliance,
a compulsion to wrap things up in terms of evaluation and governance seems mostly undeterred where I live and work
Gosh, I could get into trouble here!
I should say, logically there are different moments
and if the drive is ecephalic for Jacques,
Ron sees losing his head as a potentially creative choice,
given a set of circumstances.
Ron seems to choose madness given the hegemony of the medical model,
whereas, Jacques counters excessive science with psychoanalysis.
Both moments seem pertinent to contemporary circumstances:
what remains of therapeutic communities
and the emergence of the CTCP’s …
… but Lacanians, despite Lacanian politics, seem averse to the implications of group analysis
and, I think, wouldn’t be seen dead at the bottom of Ron’s hill
I think so, even managed to save some funding, hence reference to groupwork.
Have been working on part of a film, which, for once, doesn’t seem to want to make itself.
It, as well, seems to involve both lack of resolution and the thought that following recuperation I should choose my battles more carefully.
I have a question. I want to read “Structure of paranoid psychoses” in Le Semaine des Hopitaux (1931) in English. Could anybody tell me how I can get this article? Is it reprinted in a book or journal? Thank you very much in advance.
No, I had a big operation in January and recuperation was taking things easy for a while.
The journey back to work with others was quicker than a journey back to film-making and painting.
My post op. resolution is to discover something of the rigor of the world of Lacanian psychoanalysis in the art world.
Do you think this is possible Violet?
what to tell you, in this seminar Lacan speaks of Dante in reference to psycoanalysis - specifically to the psychoanalytic discourse, and he speaks of art…
however psychoanalysis is not art, and art is not psychoanalysis — they share a discourse, yes
In post no 88 you talk more abot the ‘art world’
than ‘art CS. I read you as asking
where in the ‘art world’ is a place
for dscourse ..like that?
of psychoanalysis informed by Lacan..?
I think this is a place one might accidently stumble
upon, a particular place with particular
people at a particular time, but more likely
to be founded outside of the ‘art world’ -
because why does it want to be a whole world anyway -
we must be skeptical of that!
Luct Lippard is speaking here soon, in teh blurb
that accompanies the advertisement it says:
‘Three Escape Attempts’
In Three Escape Attempts, Lucy Lippard will discuss her curatorial practice
with a focus on Three Escape Attempts - three moments in which artists
tried to escape or at least bypass the art world: Conceptualism, Feminism,
and what she calls the “collaborative” moment in the
So maybe the ‘artworld’ has to fall or one has to escape it
or maybe one has to, (like Allouch says about Lacan):
not care about [him} it..
Maybe t is the artworld that holds the (gap of the) gaze
in the middle of it, obscuring practice, rather than the art piece
I was wondering if anyone has an opinion to contribute. I’ve been doing a phd in Lacanian psychoanalysis for the last 5 years and i find that the work is bit by bit taking the life out of me. It has made reading my most hated activity and i really want to stop the phd. I used to love reading Lacan and be so inspired. I would love so much to find another way of being involved in psychoanalysis that does not have the effect of making it my enemy. I wonder if anyone else has the experience of writing a dissertation in psychoanalytic theory (and quitting or wanting to…)?
“x: Why cannot the students at Vincennes at the end of the teaching they are supposed to have received, become psychoanalysts?
JL (speaking in a falsetto): This is precisely what i am going to explain Mademoiselle. That is precisely what is at stake. Psychoanalysis is not transmitted like any other knowledge.
The psychoanalyst has a position that sometimes proves eventually to be able to be that of a discourse. He does not thereby transmit a knowledge. Not that there is nothing to know, contrary to what is foolishly asserted, because this is what is called into question - and why not quite rightly - the function in society of a certain knowledge, the knowledge that is transmitted to you. It exists,”
Lacan lesson 1,26/11/69
PA upside down reverse side of PA 69-70
Thank you for your responses.
Violet: “where in the world do you “do” a phd in Lacanian psychoanalysis? Is Berckeley, Ca. with Patsalides the case?”
I’m doing my PhD in Europe. I chose to concentrate on certain texts of Lacan and a paticular theme that comes up. It was very ambitious in retrospect. Mixing the constraints and structure of a dissertation with psychoanalytic theory is very difficult.
although i should add that a phd in europe is quite different to phd’s in the USA in the sense that it is not something in which you follow courses or classes etc. It involves only writing a dissertation.
Michael - where in Europe? We are curious enough… It is already rare to read someone is getting a phd in Lacanian psychoanalysis, you know, again in France you would call it another way
in France you do a disertation - of course - but it has another name, and you also need your analysis, and your training analysis, before you do the “pass…” and there is the famous “authorizing of yourself” ….
Sol - “Patsalides the case” is the head of San Francisco society for Lacanian Studies
oh no this has nothing to do with the pass or a training analysis. It is in a university - so say for example it was in a department of philosophy or humanities or something, and the student is allowed to concentrate their phd on a topic of their choice and chose Lacan etc - that is what i am involved in. Of course i do my own analysis as well, but that is a seperate thing, certainly not a required part of my phd. unfortunately i would not be at ease to say which country/university.
i don’t agree that it is rare for someone to write a phd in Lacan, indeed i know several (ok, that’s not hundreds..). Some from a department of humanities, or philosophy, or french literature etc.. It is a bit different in some parts of Europe, you are left to your own devices largely, which has the benefits of being able to chose a nice topic, and the pitfall of getting very little help (and no funding).
Dear loves, how i’ve enjoyed your recent conversations! Dear Violet who’s found the love in it, dear Sol who coined the phrase, dear Jaques who had the gnosis or not- what would he have made of this from Bill Hicks “Young men (sic) on acid today know that matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is just a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s Tom with the weather…”
Anyone read Iris Murdoch’s ‘Metaphysics as a guide to Morals’? Only half way through it myself- makes the pretension to a western enlightenment almost credible. Is Lacan of that stream? She makes but one (dismissive) reference to his self
mess indeed. And we are made by each other- contingently- sans cute qualifying parentheses. Don’t get announced as registering existent, starting to get the hyphen in ex-ist, as a sort of outside of what ought be said. Pointing i suppose to the Lacanian real which is either gnosis or bollocks. Dear Michael, who bit off more than he can chew, you’re in analysis you say. surely that gives you plenty to cryptographically not talk about in your thesis. But no, what chunk did you bite? And why is it so hard to swallow? Not that there is no sympathy here, just they’re too Lacanian here to offer any sign of it. And you wouldn’t be the first bright boy to abandon this as arrant nonsense. Look at lucky, Freudian to his marrow and steadfastly refuses to be but a a sniper
i thought the ex-ist was the not existing
inside some imaginary self, a freudian
archeological metaphor - but from and in
discourse and conversation with others -
so as you said jampa,
we’re either here or we’re not, in a way
Not for the first time, Phillippe Sollers “Love is sense and nonsense,
and it is love which allows sense to emerge from nonsense,
making the latter obvious and legible.”
As i understand the clinic of which i have no experience there’s the analysand trained to free associate and the analyst alert to slippage and then there’s intervention or not until the analysand attains to a ’sense’ obviating his/her symptoms- free to work and love.
That attaining to sense- isn’t it what, if you will, an intellection of love?
As in FIRST LOVE, “What can that have been but constipation? Or am i confusing it with diarrhoea? Its all a muddle in my head, graves and nuptials and the different varieties of motion.”
Only Beckett’s love make such a statement legible.
There’s lucky next door saying … its an intricate right or wrong… Could Marx honestly claim, “Nothing human is alien to me.”? Beckett could have but denied himself the hubris. From Murphy through to Company, we read love of the abjection we share with his creatures hallucinating, ‘devising all for company’. Like Lacan, like us, who can’t shut the fuck up. I’d be glad to see others thoughts, yours sol
Some writers (such as Agamden) refer to homo sacer,
a position beyond abjection,
if abjection holds onto something of the subject.
The subject is somewhere there with Beckett
and Beckett is writing close up to a moment in history which defies description.
Lacan is contemporary with Beckett too.
Gunter Grass in ‘The Tin Drum’ titles a long chapter ‘Mystical, barbaric and bored’. Which seems apt to the time which defies description Chris? Beckett (i think famously) said “no symbols where none intended”.Nor symptoms either, i would wager. Were he alive he’d take an axe to this psych-analytic reductionism. But of course violet, having worked myself with homeless junkie psychotics, there is often an attachment to abjection. The remedy we offered was an empathetic community, love ‘beside not above’ sol. It worked for some
re comments 8 and 9 violet
do you think the abject is especially both emitted
and rejected in the discourse and
especially in relation to identification -how you
say ‘the attachment’
But the abject crossing the symbolic
and imaginary and difficult in relation
to the feminine and to the place of the
analyst at the end
sol - I see abjection both emitted and rejected in the discourse in concern with the subject the analyst is likely to embody. Indeed a critical moment, the site if it is not enough for the patient to recognize this construction is his own
I agree violet, think Freud’s argument that there is
no ‘no’ in the unconscious also goes
for the feminine - but, lucky,
with the wish/angst for/in disappearing
(in sexual pleasure)
the feminine position can very much
overlap with the abject (with either
gender) in a perverse insistence
that some-thing is there, to detour
the end perhaps..
What stuck for me and what turns itself into some kind of dreamwork (it seems)
is a notion of the timeless and genderless unconscious (comment 146).
That is, after dreaming, I seem lulled by an unconscious-ness
into saying something is often missing in a dream:
or lost object
briefly returns in a dream,
but perhaps also a ’sense
to dreamwork or interpretation.
If I sense I was once alive in a dream,
the rest is assured:
after ‘being in a dream’,
there’s the chance that the subject of the unconscious,
or wants to be alive …
The arguement (against Lacan) seems to have moved away from short sessions (and the certainty of 50 minutes), to one of regulatory bodies set up to provide some certainty that there are regulations.
If consistency is somehow substituted for certainty, can we say the object a is a consistent object: that it has a consistency?
Don’t recall naming an “old lucky” nor “shooting in the foot”.
Admin told us “lucky is thinking big these days” suggesting there have been other days
and i sniped ’sniper ‘a” in reference to lucky past, present and figurative.
If anyone shoots himself in the foot i name jampa