We took away the avatars because they are too tiny… and the little images inside could not be seen
And we stopped the messages in the forum because we cannot control the SPAM
Most critics of Freud have a point I think
Like this one is saying for Freud,
the whole world is about what is in your pants,
about your genitals- they mean sex
well, lots of critics of Freud say he is sex-obsessed don’t they?
The interesting thing is then in their definition of sex.
I like when he had those glasses,
I think he was about 70.
Returning to the a that is not a semblant
what then when the a takes the position
of the semblant in the analyst’s discourse
-I am wondering about that
Sol - the a when it takes the position of semblant in the analytical discourse, what it “semblants” is the cause of the desire - impersonated by the analyst
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.’
I think what Lacan meant with art being verbal at a second power is that it uses the structure of language without necessarily using words… again, art like woman, like the analyst are bound to become
- 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
actually, Verbal at a second power is only addressing the structure, so if knowledge is not the case, there is nothing to transmit, truth complies with revelation
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.
CSS - gender has never been an issue. Lacan said women were good analysts… why? I don’t know. I think it is not the same if it is a man or a woman, but there isn’t theory about it
I remember once he said because they could see the baby in the man
I think it matters in terms of the question
what is a psychoanalysis - it’s something you expect from
a psychoanalyst - so for some it must be a man or a woman
for a psychoanalysis to be your own
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 …
CS - Where that Lacan says that “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?”
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,
I found
”… 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”.
(PN14 p.95)
(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
re 62
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.
Laing wrote:
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
JILL No
JACK I’ll never forgive you for not forgiving me
re 66
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 https://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=99
and
‘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 …
Rather than bother you all (!)
I googled ‘acephalic’ and ‘Lacan’
(but not ‘lost his crown’)
because I want to read and cannot recall
which seminar he speaks about it -
Google retrieved you CS saying you think it
is (somewhere?) in Silicet
and you violet saying there is
the acephalic in Freud’s ‘A child is being beaten’
!
the driven or desirous.
Doesn’t he, or does he,
discuss the acephalic in a seminar
that is in english translation?
Prior to X??
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’ https://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.
Neggy D.
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
CSS - what if the way to relate psychoanalysis and art is through psychosis, or what we are talking about in the messageboard - next door. Have you read Recalcatti at all?
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
early 1980s.
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
??
Have put some of my fumblings next door at the symposium,
imagining perhaps an equivalent to the CTCP’s in the art world,
but art+psychoanalysis as a fourth escaping
(a world that doesn’t exist)
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
sem. xvii
PA upside down reverse side of PA 69-70
Hi
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).
Michael, your question had to do with ‘running out of steam’
and your separation of analysis and dissertation
makes Sol’s comment (100) seem more pertinent.
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
Hello again Jampa. I have never read Iris
but you remind me that she’s on my list..
I have just read a few papers from LI 10.
‘Drawing the impossible’ is a mighty piece:
what kind of question does Delilah ask?:
“What kind of woman are you?” !
Must Tom exist? Why Sol? Given that is, in this forum, one either is or is not. Whatever the gnosis, there is always a knower. Woman doesn’t ex-ist, yet always, i would say, conditionally.
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
So Sol, we establish each other’s ex-istence here. Through dialogue or discourse? By what magnitude would that be amplified by an energetic global compassion? (th)is has always been my question.
Been reading some virtue-epistemology and there’s the buddhist thing. Just to be frank… But the clinic, the clinic- full speech, the result beyond neurosis- who loves enough to speak of it?
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
love beside instead of on top of
comes to mind.
There is always that distance between
me and Beckett’s characters
that gives me the space and time to approach-
it’s not just the theatrical setting
but I take your ‘abjection’ Jampa and thinking on it..
Violet, had to re-read your sentence many times,
and still I’m not sure what it says,
rather like the letter reader.
Does it say
abjection can’t stand a symptom
or
can it stand (in) for a symptom?
Chris Sands, my sentence is quoting jampa, in 131, “…we read love of the abjection…” I like how the “love of the abjection” names a symptom I often encounter when working with patients
I was thinking of Kristeva’s abjection CS
as the place between the object and the subject
-always not-object and not-subject..
the place of the outsider or stranger, and woman
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..
oh well, lucky is not depriving himself of expression… just go to the forum - there is a lot about lucky and the feminine in the forum — in images and in writing
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:
the Other
or lost object
briefly returns in a dream,
but perhaps also a ’sense
of being’
prior
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,
one day,
wants something,
discovers desire
or wants to be alive …
Professor Jean-Martin Charcot teaching at the Salpêtrière in Paris, France: showing his students a woman (”Blanche” (Marie) Wittman) in an trance or shock, 1887.
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?
so funny sol, can’t believe I had to read you so many times to finally understand what you meant with the “extra feet to shoot”… we are definitely talking in code, as CS would say
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
My “lucky is thinking big these days” had a direct reference to the very big images lucky was posting in the forum… they start with Nietsche’s photograph “look at me”
We took away the avatars because they are too tiny… and the little images inside could not be seen
And we stopped the messages in the forum because we cannot control the SPAM
Comment by admin — February 19, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
I loved the color, but as I look more closely I see the jeans and the world…… what is it about… Sol, help!
Comment by violet — February 24, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Most critics of Freud have a point I think
Like this one is saying for Freud,
the whole world is about what is in your pants,
about your genitals- they mean sex
well, lots of critics of Freud say he is sex-obsessed don’t they?
The interesting thing is then in their definition of sex.
I like when he had those glasses,
I think he was about 70.
Comment by sol — February 24, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
JA Miller recounts Sarah Palin’s “subliminal” say… “Obama? He’s got nothing in the pants.’ And she immediately took it back, but it was too late.”
Comment by violet — February 26, 2009 @ 12:45 am
Violet, who is the painter above? (166)
Comment by Chris Sands — February 27, 2009 @ 10:53 am
CS - The Freud image comes from the AMP blog - no mention of the artist
Comment by admin — February 27, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Returning to the a that is not a semblant
what then when the a takes the position
of the semblant in the analyst’s discourse
-I am wondering about that
Hope all are well (enough)
s/t
Comment by sol — March 4, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
the position of what is emitted?
or rejected by discourse?
Comment by sol — March 4, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
Sol - the a when it takes the position of semblant in the analytical discourse, what it “semblants” is the cause of the desire - impersonated by the analyst
Comment by violet — March 5, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
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?
Comment by Chris Sands — March 6, 2009 @ 5:06 am
i think not
Comment by sol — March 6, 2009 @ 10:19 am
i think it doesn’t matter
Comment by sol — March 6, 2009 @ 10:26 am
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.
Comment by violet — March 6, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
‘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 …
Comment by Chris Sands — March 7, 2009 @ 4:28 am
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)
Comment by Chris Sands — March 7, 2009 @ 9:59 am
CS- something in concern with “resembles” touches on the discourse, of the analyst, of art, of woman… they share the same discourse
Comment by violet — March 9, 2009 @ 5:52 am
Hi Violet,
Would you be able to point me to where Lacan talks about art as “verbal at a second power”? I’d be very grateful indeed…
a guest
Comment by guest — March 9, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Lacan talks about art in Seminar Xlll. And this seminar is not translated. Thus art as “verbal at a second power” is Stuart Schneiderman’s translation
Comment by admin — March 9, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
Thanks Admin. Is Schneiderman’s translation from a paper on this site, or Lacanian Ink?
Comment by guest — March 10, 2009 @ 6:52 am
the phrase is in notes I have from a seminar he gave at NYU
Comment by admin — March 10, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Ah, ok. Thanks for your response nonetheless, which suggested some other possible leads.
Comment by guest — March 10, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
why that you call yourself guest…… it sounds like a halt in your way to some place else, as if you are just passing by…
Comment by violet — March 10, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
it’s also sometimes a halt in my way from some place else…
thanks violet
Comment by guest — March 11, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
so guest, what do you think of art being verbal at a second power?
Comment by violet — March 12, 2009 @ 1:27 am
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.’
Comment by Chris Sands — March 12, 2009 @ 4:08 am
Could we then substitute voice for gaze (in some way)
and consider art (as a text which) can be
‘verbal at a second power’ ?
Comment by Chris Sands — March 12, 2009 @ 8:08 am
I think what Lacan meant with art being verbal at a second power is that it uses the structure of language without necessarily using words… again, art like woman, like the analyst are bound to become
Comment by violet — March 13, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
- 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’?
Comment by Chris Sands — March 15, 2009 @ 5:06 am
Hi Violet,
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)?
Comment by guest — March 15, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
In fact the exact phrase he uses is ‘Heightened Speech’ (the capitals are his).
Comment by guest — March 15, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
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.
Comment by violet — March 15, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
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
Comment by violet — March 16, 2009 @ 12:24 am
(Violet) yes but doesn’t something new happen with the second Lacan?
And doesn’t the sinthome create new political (and ethical) questions?
Comment by Chris Sands — March 16, 2009 @ 2:56 am
with Verbal, what we took to be knowledge (S2) turns out to be fiction
and thus closer to desire, to truth?
Comment by guest — March 16, 2009 @ 9:06 am
actually, Verbal at a second power is only addressing the structure, so if knowledge is not the case, there is nothing to transmit, truth complies with revelation
Comment by violet — March 16, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
what then is the relation between revelation and sense?
Comment by guest — March 16, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
with analysis for instance, there is the sense of things you do to be revealed through the work of analysis — specially through finding new meaning
Comment by violet — March 17, 2009 @ 6:23 am
revelation through metaphor…?
Comment by guest — March 17, 2009 @ 7:44 am
now you explain guest, which metaphor in what we are saying?
Comment by admin — March 17, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
it seems that something is made new
and that is called revelation
though there may be another name for it
Comment by guest — March 17, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
you want to call it a subject — ?
Comment by violet — March 17, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
the sense the logic
and the revelation a moment of truth
Comment by sol — March 17, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
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.
Comment by violet — March 18, 2009 @ 3:26 am
How does the gender of the analyst (and the analysand) + sexuation formulas enter into these structures?
Comment by Chris Sands — March 18, 2009 @ 5:27 am
CSS - gender has never been an issue. Lacan said women were good analysts… why? I don’t know. I think it is not the same if it is a man or a woman, but there isn’t theory about it
Comment by violet — March 18, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
I remember once he said because they could see the baby in the man
I think it matters in terms of the question
what is a psychoanalysis - it’s something you expect from
a psychoanalyst - so for some it must be a man or a woman
for a psychoanalysis to be your own
Comment by sol — March 19, 2009 @ 3:28 am
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 …
Comment by Chris Sands — March 19, 2009 @ 3:53 am
CS - Where that Lacan says that “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?”
Comment by violet — March 19, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
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)
Comment by Chris Sands — March 20, 2009 @ 4:22 am
above, should have written Psychoanalytic Notebooks, issue 11, ’sexuation and sexuality’
Comment by Chris Sands — March 20, 2009 @ 4:26 am
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 …
Comment by Chris Sands — March 20, 2009 @ 4:47 am
Comment by Chris Sands — March 20, 2009 @ 4:58 am
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.
Comment by violet — March 20, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
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?
Comment by Chris Sands — March 21, 2009 @ 4:08 am
And the sinthome is where the knot is?
lovely
Comment by lucky — March 21, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
which knot lucky?
Comment by violet — March 21, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
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?
Comment by lucky — March 21, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
which makes me wonder if sometimes a sintome is sometimes more wedded to the drive while with others it is more wrapped up in desirew?
Comment by lucky — March 21, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
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?
Comment by Chris Sands — March 22, 2009 @ 9:12 am
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’ …
Comment by Chris Sands — March 23, 2009 @ 4:19 am
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
Comment by violet — March 26, 2009 @ 2:48 am
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…
Comment by violet — March 26, 2009 @ 3:03 am
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,
I found
”… 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”.
(PN14 p.95)
(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”)
Comment by Chris Sands — March 26, 2009 @ 6:17 am
I know nothing about those other two, but I meant everybodys symptoms all around. I was also thinking about those pictures of knots in Encore.
Comment by lucky — March 26, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
The Borromean Knot
Comment by violet — March 28, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
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
Comment by admin — March 29, 2009 @ 4:29 am
re 62
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.
Laing wrote:
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
JILL No
JACK I’ll never forgive you for not forgiving me
Comment by Chris Sands — March 29, 2009 @ 5:35 am
re 66
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 … (?)
Comment by Chris Sands — March 29, 2009 @ 5:53 am
in any case it’s such a good example of the Laing knots CSS, as to explain the differences in what we were talking
Comment by violet — March 30, 2009 @ 12:32 am
CSS - the beautiful image on 52 appeared…
Comment by admin — March 30, 2009 @ 12:46 am
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
Comment by admin — March 30, 2009 @ 12:54 am
(69) Laing’s text referring to an upset and much worse in a famous nursery rhyme
(Jack and Jill went up the hill …)
Comment by Chris Sands — March 30, 2009 @ 3:13 am
In view of
https://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=99
and
‘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 …
Comment by Chris Sands — March 30, 2009 @ 3:50 am
Rather than bother you all (!)
I googled ‘acephalic’ and ‘Lacan’
(but not ‘lost his crown’)
because I want to read and cannot recall
which seminar he speaks about it -
Google retrieved you CS saying you think it
is (somewhere?) in Silicet
and you violet saying there is
the acephalic in Freud’s ‘A child is being beaten’
!
the driven or desirous.
Doesn’t he, or does he,
discuss the acephalic in a seminar
that is in english translation?
Prior to X??
Comment by sol — March 31, 2009 @ 7:35 am
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’ https://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.
Comment by Chris Sands — April 1, 2009 @ 4:30 am
When someone has a migraine
and only suffers the aura, not the headache
it is called an acephallic migraine
Comment by sol — April 2, 2009 @ 1:46 am
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 …
Comment by violet — April 2, 2009 @ 4:55 am
aca- fell
(down and br oke
his crown
and the girl
was always (coming)/tumbling after
Comment by sol — April 2, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
Yeah.
Jacques and Ron went up the hill …
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
Comment by Chris Sands — April 3, 2009 @ 4:32 am
Jacques and Ron……, who is Ron? what that I am not undesrstanding?
Comment by violet — April 3, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
ronald = r.d. laing
Comment by sol — April 3, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
so jacques fell down and broke his crown and ron came tumbling after?
Comment by violet — April 5, 2009 @ 4:53 am
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
Was I responsible for your sore head Sol?
Comment by Chris Sands — April 5, 2009 @ 11:15 am
No sore head CS, just trying to write something
abut Nietzsche, eternal recurrence and migraines..
Comment by sol — April 5, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Have you recuperated by the way?
Comment by sol — April 5, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
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.
Comment by Chris Sands — April 6, 2009 @ 3:22 am
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.
Neggy D.
Comment by Neggy D. — April 8, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
CSS - does recuperation mean you need to attend to some kind of rehab?
Comment by violet — April 11, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
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?
Comment by Chris Sands — April 12, 2009 @ 4:06 am
CSS - have you come across Seminar XIIl, still unpublished in French, where Lacan talks about art - a lot of pages on Velazques’ Meninas… and so?
Comment by violet — April 12, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
no, but say some more Violet
Comment by Chris Sands — April 12, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
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
Comment by violet — April 12, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
CSS - what if the way to relate psychoanalysis and art is through psychosis, or what we are talking about in the messageboard - next door. Have you read Recalcatti at all?
Comment by violet — April 12, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
Violet, have responded (to 92) next door at symposium
Comment by Chris Sands — April 13, 2009 @ 2:57 am
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
early 1980s.
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
??
Comment by sol — April 13, 2009 @ 4:59 am
sorry - lucy lippard quote ends at ‘1980s’
Comment by sol — April 13, 2009 @ 4:59 am
Have put some of my fumblings next door at the symposium,
imagining perhaps an equivalent to the CTCP’s in the art world,
but art+psychoanalysis as a fourth escaping
(a world that doesn’t exist)
Comment by Chris Sands — April 13, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Hi all,
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…)?
Comment by Michael — April 17, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
The borromean knot is stupendous up above
Comment by lucky — April 17, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Michael - where in the world do you “do” a phd in Lacanian psychoanalysis? Is Berckeley, Ca. with Patsalides the case?
Comment by violet — April 17, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
You need to find the love in it or quit it,
whatever it is, say i
Comment by sol — April 18, 2009 @ 4:46 am
hey violet,
what or who is Patsalides the case?
Comment by sol — April 18, 2009 @ 4:47 am
“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
sem. xvii
PA upside down reverse side of PA 69-70
Comment by sol — April 18, 2009 @ 4:59 am
Hi
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.
Comment by Michael — April 18, 2009 @ 7:20 am
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.
Comment by Michael — April 18, 2009 @ 7:26 am
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
Comment by violet — April 18, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
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.
Comment by Michael — April 18, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
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).
Comment by Michael — April 18, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Michael, your question had to do with ‘running out of steam’
and your separation of analysis and dissertation
makes Sol’s comment (100) seem more pertinent.
Comment by Chris Sands — April 19, 2009 @ 3:50 am
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…”
Comment by jampa — April 19, 2009 @ 10:26 am
@—-,—– jampa himself, back!!! too nice. Oh! we missed you jampa, here goes another flower @—-,—–
Comment by violet — April 19, 2009 @ 10:56 am
So sweet your lovely flowers Violet. A little shower of rose petals for you @@@@@@@@@
Comment by jampa — April 19, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
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
Comment by jampa — April 19, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Hello again Jampa. I have never read Iris
but you remind me that she’s on my list..
I have just read a few papers from LI 10.
‘Drawing the impossible’ is a mighty piece:
what kind of question does Delilah ask?:
“What kind of woman are you?” !
There is no author bio via the link..
Comment by sol — April 19, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Is that the hairdresser Delilah? Asking of Samson? So woman re-cognizes man as inexistent as she? This could give some spark to my love life!
Comment by jampa — April 20, 2009 @ 12:11 am
well sometimes perhaps, if we are the imagination
of ourselves, (un)made by each other,
but Tom with the weather must certainly
ex-ist, mustn’t he?!
Delilah is a kind of hairdresser but Samson is more a
hungry box full of money and cheese
Luck with the extinguishing/re-igniting spark then Jampa.
Comment by sol — April 20, 2009 @ 12:18 am
Must Tom exist? Why Sol? Given that is, in this forum, one either is or is not. Whatever the gnosis, there is always a knower. Woman doesn’t ex-ist, yet always, i would say, conditionally.
Comment by jampa — April 20, 2009 @ 12:41 am
Can’t follow…. who is Tom?
Comment by violet — April 21, 2009 @ 2:06 am
mess. 109 (by jampa): “Here’s Tom with the weather…”
because you announced him jampa..
Comment by sol — April 21, 2009 @ 5:34 am
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
Comment by jampa — April 21, 2009 @ 11:18 am
sniper ‘a’ that is
Comment by jampa — April 21, 2009 @ 11:28 am
oh now you’re (an)noyed with it- what a mess
Comment by sol — April 21, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
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
Comment by sol — April 21, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
So Sol, we establish each other’s ex-istence here. Through dialogue or discourse? By what magnitude would that be amplified by an energetic global compassion? (th)is has always been my question.
Comment by jampa — April 21, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Been reading some virtue-epistemology and there’s the buddhist thing. Just to be frank… But the clinic, the clinic- full speech, the result beyond neurosis- who loves enough to speak of it?
Comment by jampa — April 21, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Comment by violet — April 28, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Lacan’s cabinet -where he received patients-at 3 rue de Lille, Paris, France
Comment by violet — April 28, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
how does it go through the love jampa… how that the speaking of “it” goes through the too much love?
Comment by violet — May 2, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
love at least
Comment by sol — May 5, 2009 @ 6:22 am
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.
Comment by jampa — May 5, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
I do love Beckett but Jampa can you say something
more about Beckett’s love please?
Comment by sol — May 6, 2009 @ 12:59 am
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
Comment by jampa — May 6, 2009 @ 11:39 am
love beside instead of on top of
comes to mind.
There is always that distance between
me and Beckett’s characters
that gives me the space and time to approach-
it’s not just the theatrical setting
but I take your ‘abjection’ Jampa and thinking on it..
Comment by sol — May 6, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
very impressive, if I can intrude, is the love for the abjection… how much can it stand for a symptom?
Comment by violet — May 7, 2009 @ 2:48 am
Comment by sol — May 7, 2009 @ 4:01 am
Is this Cindy Sherman Sol?
Violet, had to re-read your sentence many times,
and still I’m not sure what it says,
rather like the letter reader.
Does it say
abjection can’t stand a symptom
or
can it stand (in) for a symptom?
Comment by Chris Sands — May 8, 2009 @ 3:43 am
Chris Sands, my sentence is quoting jampa, in 131, “…we read love of the abjection…” I like how the “love of the abjection” names a symptom I often encounter when working with patients
Comment by violet — May 8, 2009 @ 10:49 am
So abjection as depression
or abjection as sorrow
and sometimes the solace of abjection (as love of the abjection) ?
Bataille, I think, used the term
Comment by Chris Sands — May 10, 2009 @ 5:43 am
I was thinking of Kristeva’s abjection CS
as the place between the object and the subject
-always not-object and not-subject..
the place of the outsider or stranger, and woman
Comment by sol — May 10, 2009 @ 6:51 am
yes, well.
And why is love so problem?
And with Beckett, so love, so compassion… the unutterable drive of the analyst, the jouissance of the gnostic
Comment by jampa — May 10, 2009 @ 8:35 am
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.
Comment by Chris Sands — May 10, 2009 @ 11:10 am
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
Comment by jampa — May 11, 2009 @ 1:43 am
I want to know some more of the attachment to abjection, jampa…
Comment by violet — May 13, 2009 @ 3:09 am
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
Comment by sol — May 15, 2009 @ 8:15 am
hw is it specially different in relation to the feminine? is that at the end too?
Comment by lucky — May 15, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
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
Comment by violet — May 17, 2009 @ 1:59 am
as there is no time in the unconscious, I think there isn’t gender either
Comment by violet — May 17, 2009 @ 2:17 am
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..
Comment by sol — May 17, 2009 @ 7:35 am
oh well, lucky is not depriving himself of expression… just go to the forum - there is a lot about lucky and the feminine in the forum — in images and in writing
Comment by violet — May 17, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
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:
the Other
or lost object
briefly returns in a dream,
but perhaps also a ’sense
of being’
prior
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,
one day,
wants something,
discovers desire
or wants to be alive …
Comment by Chris Sands — May 18, 2009 @ 4:00 am
Professor Jean-Martin Charcot teaching at the Salpêtrière in Paris, France: showing his students a woman (”Blanche” (Marie) Wittman) in an trance or shock, 1887.
Comment by Chris Sands — May 18, 2009 @ 4:05 am
CS - Lacan’s argument on behalf of the short session is based on the timeless unconscious
Comment by violet — May 18, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
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?
Comment by Chris Sands — May 18, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
CS - not with lacanians, time hasn’t moved away from short sessions… this is how it was, and how it is
Comment by violet — May 18, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
There is no certainty in analysis (except for the hysteric)
As to consistency…
In any case the objet a is truly inconsistent
Comment by rupert — May 18, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
but then doesn’t Lacan suppose the object a
in terms of ‘logical consistency’ ?
Comment by Chris Sands — May 19, 2009 @ 2:15 am
well… insofar as you oppose the “logical consistency” of objet a vis-à-vis the “logical inconsistency” of the Other
Comment by rupert — May 19, 2009 @ 3:03 am
“The Couple,” Peter Schoolwerth, 2005 — according to the artist “the couple” is the patient and the analyst
Comment by violet — May 19, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
well some extra feet here to shoot
Comment by sol — May 22, 2009 @ 12:43 am
so funny sol, can’t believe I had to read you so many times to finally understand what you meant with the “extra feet to shoot”… we are definitely talking in code, as CS would say
Comment by violet — May 24, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
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
Comment by jampa — May 24, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
My “lucky is thinking big these days” had a direct reference to the very big images lucky was posting in the forum… they start with Nietsche’s photograph “look at me”
Comment by admin — May 26, 2009 @ 12:57 am
jampa - didn’t you promise to show your daughter’s photographs? put them up, if it doesn’t work, which is likely to happen, I’ll fix them
Comment by admin — May 28, 2009 @ 6:40 pm