Info and registration at http://congresoamp.com/en/template.php
February 24-26, 2012
New York, New York
with our guest
Member of the School and former Analyst of the School
Escuela de la Orientación Lacaniana
and with the participation of
Analyst Member of the School and former Analyst of the School
École de la Cause freudienne and New Lacanian School
Special Delegate of the World Association of Psychoanalysis for the United States
“An act,” Jacques Lacan declared on January 10, 1968, in reference to the Psychoanalytic Act, “is linked in the determination of the beginning, and very especially where there is need to make one . . .” We believe we can find two inflections of this: one being the beginning of analysis, the entry of the subject into the analytic discourse, taken from the point of view of the analysant, and the other as the beginning of analysis, the entry of the subject into the analytic discourse, taken from the point of view of the analyst. This beginning is a beginning for both the analysant and the analyst. For the analysant, as we explored in Paris during the 2010 Paris-USA Lacan Seminar on “Entering Analysis,” this beginning is absolutely specific for each subject, and for each analysis, and, even, for each session, and the beginning is marked by a specific transference, which can be identified from the point of the analysant and the analyst in testimonies and case presentations. For the analyst, especially at that first moment of being used in the position of analyst, we can find the absolute radical discontinuity between the Lacanian orientation and other approaches to psychoanalysis and clinical practice in Lacan’s work: in the formulation of Discourse of the Analyst, in his definition of the transference as the subject supposed to know, and, in the elaboration of the Pass and the institutional structures relating to formation and training elaborated by Lacan and carried forward by Jacques-Alain Miller in the establishment of the Schools of the World Association of Psychoanalysis.
For our next Clinical Study Days, we will explore the status of the Psychoanalytic Act in the 21st Century. The Symbolic Order has changed today, even from the moment of the Seminar of Lacan on the Psychoanalytic Act in 1968. The transference that appeared to Freud closely linked to parental, even paternal, imagos, in part because the Symbolic Order at that moment was closely structured by the Signifier of the Name-of-the-Father, is seen less and less today. At this moment today, where the Symbolic Order is no longer what it used to be, to take the title of our upcoming Congress of the WAP, the signifier of the Name-of-the-Father no longer functions in the same way, which has implications for the possible paths in the establishment of the transference. If, as Lacan spoke on November 29, 1967, “this psychoanalytic act is something that is quite essentially linked to the functioning of the transference,” what precisely has changed about the transference, or the paths to the establishment of the transference, in today’s world? How do analsants today reach the point of the beginning of an analysis? And, taken from the perspective of the analyst: in what ways has this new Symbolic Order created a situation that requires a different Direction of the Treatment? Is it necessary for the psychoanalyst to create new strategies with regard to the transference in the face of this new Symbolic Order? What is the place of interpretation today in light of this? And what, for our psychoanalytic institutions, is necessary to sustain a place for psychoanalytic discourse in today’s world? In order for our Schools to facilitate the very passage of an analysant to an analyst, what consequences are there with regard to formation that we are facing in the 21st Century? These are some of the questions that we raise for our consideration of “The Psychoanalytic Act in the 21st Century.”
Maria Cristina Aguirre
Juan Felipe Arango
Messager 273 – 2011/2012
VERS TEL AVIV 13 / TOWARDS TEL AVIV 13
Xe Congrès NLS 16-17 juin 2012 / 10th NLS Congress 16-17 June 2012
16 December 2011
“Lire un symptôme”
Region de Lahich- Danny Barnea
‘Reading a Symptom’
The aim of this rubric is to gather different commentaries, reflections or questions that emerge from chosen quotes, or from extracts of Freud’s or Lacan’s texts. By gathering different thoughts and voices, ‘Reflections’ will take us towards ‘Reading a Symptom’ and in the end to our meeting in Tel Aviv. ‘Reflections’ invites you to participate in this project.
“A symptom is a sign of, and a substitute for, an instinctual satisfaction which has remained in abeyance; it is a consequence of the process of repression. (p.91) (…) [It] is that the instinctual impulse has found a substitute in spite of repression, but a substitute which is very much reduced, displaced and inhibited and which is no longer recognizable as a satisfaction (p.95) (…) [T]hus degrading a process of satisfaction to a symptom…”.
S.Freud; “Inhibition, Symptom and Anxiety” , Standard Edition, Vol. XX, Hogarth.
Freud formed this theory of symptom formation in terms of a defence against ‘incompatible representations’ in the much earlier, pre-psychoanalytic text of The Neuropsychoses of Defence . He differentiates symptoms in Phobia, Hysteria and Compulsion, but the common ground is that a sexual experience (the incompatible idea) gives rise to attempts at erasing it from consciousness. In hysteria this attempt is at the level of ‘repressing the thing’, Freud says, at forgetting, which leaves a trace. This memory trace and the affect attached to it cannot be completely ‘rooted out’, however, the weakening of the representation by removing the affect is a partial success. In Compulsion a‘false connection’ defuses the original representation, in hysteria it is ‘conversion to the bodily’. (SE1)
When we think of the symptom as a satisfaction, it is this different ‘use’ of the affect that is in question. How has the removal – which in this early text is not at all a removal, but a filteringthrough to a different function, that of the body in hysteria and that of thought in compulsion – maintained a satisfaction and created a symptom? Freud deals with this question in the later text of 1926. The symptom as a sign and a substitute for a satisfaction, evokes the trace that cannot be got rid of.
In his Presentation for Tel-Aviv, Jacques-Alain Miller, making the link to Lacan, positions the symptom in its cause in language, as what, after the effect of repression, ‘abeyance’, brings what did not exist in language, into existence. Language is a symptom in the sense that it performs this function of makingsomething exist, through the use of metaphor.
“Clearly, what is repressed is a want-to-be par excellence. [...] Language has the function of bringing whatdoesn’t exist into Being.”
The symptom makes something exist that has no other form of expression, or, hitherto only had an “instinctual satisfaction” at its disposal.
In one sense, the symptom is that which succeeded in bringing into speech, in the patient’s own take on the situation he is in, the expression of something that does not work: ‘I cannot do it, it stops me from living the way I want to, it takes up all my time’. The complaint is part of a discourse and a structure that belongs to the category of the deficit, ‘it does not work’, hence we think of a desire and a lack in being.
However, Miller’s argument points beyond the metaphoric element of the symptom:
“Under the name of symptomatic leftovers Freud came up against the real of the symptom (…) [what] falls wide of meaning.”
Beyond the complaint, the ‘success’ of the symptom (it does not work), is the failure of the symptom (the ‘it does not work’ does not work). Is the failure the same as the real of the symptom? We are reminded of the formula of the real as impossible ‘what does not stop not writing itself’. The impossible comes to the fore when the symptom’s successful satisfaction leaves something open that disturbs. The ‘reduced’ satisfaction Freud speaks about, the satisfaction of the symptom, begins to show gaps that let the real of the body come through unprotected by symptomatic solutions.
“Indeed, a symptom vouches for the fact that there has been an event that has marked his jouissance in the Freudiansense of Anzeichen, which introduces an Ersatz, a jouissance there ought not to be, a jouissance that troubles the jouissance there ought to be, i.e. jouissance of its nature as a body.”
J.A.Miller; ‘Reading a Symptom’
For Freud, it is the degrading of a satisfaction that becomes a symptom, the grading down of intensity. With Lacan we can say that the fact of having a symptom is indeed a form of taming an otherwise ferocious drive demand. The clinic of the object teaches us that in cases where the object does not function, in states of mania for example, the ‘it does not work’ is missing, leading the subject to experience the drive in unmediated forms, in ‘its nature as a body’.
Recent NLS-Messager, English: http://www.amp-nls.org/en/template.php?sec=actualites&file=actualites/nls_messager.html
Récents NLS-Messager, français: http://www.amp-nls.org/fr/template.php?sec=actualites&file=actualites/nls_messager.html
Nouvelle École Lacanienne de Psychanalyse — New Lacanian School of Psychoanalysis
Association Mondiale de Psychanalyse – World Association of Psychoanalysis
The Paris USA Lacan Seminar in New York
Friday Sept 30 -9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Saturday Oct 1 – 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sunday Oct 2- 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Submitted by: Tom Svolos. Omaha. US.
The Paris-USA Lacan Seminar, info and registration at http://www.parisusalacanseminar.org/
Save the Dates
Thursday, Sept 29 2011: 19:00
Lecture by Eric laurent at Barnard College NY.
« Psychoanalysis and our time »
LACAN’S LEGACY: THIRTY YEARS IN THE LACANIAN ORIENTATlON
“Nobody interprets psychoanalysis today according to the canons that prevailed previously.” Course of J.-A. Miller, 26 March 2008.
JACQUES LACAN DIED IN SEPTEMBER 1981. In celebration of this anniversary a three days Seminar will take place in September 30th, October 1 & 2, 2011, at Barnard College, in New York City. It will be the first PARIS-USA LACAN SEMINAR to be held in the USA:
The Seminar will focus on theoretical appraisal of Lacanian concepts and also on their ethical and practical bearings on issues that are crucial for our civilization, such as the decline of the Father, changes in the modern family, shifts in femininity, subjectivity beyond the Oedipus complex, LGBT issues, the relationship between Psychoanalysis and Science, (neuroscience in particular), and more.
1. Psychoanalysis and Norms: beyond the Oedipus complex
2. Psychoanalysis and Sexuation: no sexual relation
3. The Subject and its partners: the hypermodern family
4. Psychoanalysis and Science: the Real is lawless
This Seminar will be hosted and sponsored by Barnard College, and presented under the auspices of the WAP – World Association of Psychoanalysis and Paris VIII University.
It is placed under the direction of Jacques-Alain Miller.
The Committee: Prof. Marie-Hélène Brousse, Prof. Pierre-Gilles Gueguen (Université Paris 8), Prof. Maire Jaanus (Barnard College), Prof. Ellie Ragland (University of Missouri), Josefina Ayerza (editor of Lacanian Ink), Dr. Eric Laurent.
It’s now thirty years since the death of Lacan. 9 September 1981. And, as Jacques-Alain Miller predicted more than 20 years ago, today everybody is a Lacanian. Lacan and the Lacanians In the United States, Lacan is read by the IPA(International Psychoanalytic Association), the association that once maintained him at a distance after havingexpelled him; Lacan is read in the universities; and he is read as a contemporary French author, as a philosopher, maybe even as a psychoanalyst. But is he read as the psychoanalyst that he was, one inspired by his practice? Lacanians are everywhere, but is the true spirit of psychoanalysis still here?There exists a large number of groups, self proclaimed inheritors of Lacan, others who think that his work can be interpreted carelessly and that anyone can select and extract out of context whatever they like, giving him the same treatment thepost-Freudians gave Freud before Lacan went back over his traces. Unlike Freud, Lacan paid scant attention to institutional matters.He once uttered the fatal words: “A psychoanalyst authorizes himself only by himself.” He knew that the immense famehe had acquired in such a short time was more important – at least in the short term – for the future of psychoanalysis than the clans of those who claimed to be his successors. As a consequence, he dissolved his School, the one he had founded. He made one gesture that counterbalanced all the rest, however: skipping one, even two generations of his colleagues,to designate a young man to whom, notably, he entrusted the task of editing his seminars, appointing him co-author.With the assistance of only a handful at the outset, Jacques-Alain Miller, in whom Lacan had placed his trust aboveall others as someone to grasp the logic of his teaching, created in France the Ecole de la Cause Freudienne. Then,under the necessity to protect psychoanalysis against various menaces coming especially from bureaucratic health agencies in Europe, Miller worked at bringing to fruition the establishment of the World Association of Psychoanalysis which todaycounts 1,500 psychoanalysts and which is the only association to have been able to keep open the pathways opened up by Lacan. This association for Psychoanalysis follows an orientation based on the rigorous study of Lacan’s texts, which Miller has beenpursuing for the last 30 years at his weekly course, which he calls “The Lacanian Orientation,”in the Department ofPsychoanalysis created by Lacan at the University of Paris 8 (St. Denis). It is a delegation of this Departmentthat Barnard College will be hosting in New York in October 2011.
Submitted by: Tom Svolos. Omaha. US.