JUAN MANUEL HAIR
The prelude of this work is in the lineup device, a device analogous to the psychoanalytic clinic, which was settled around the transfer. I arrived at the ambiguity of the formula subject supposed to know by the theoretical horizons awoke work on the bill as it came to move the paths already trodden by the issue of transfer and was a catalyst for new questions. In the work of the cartel emerged discussions, comments, reading together and critical texts. And the time came to develop a unique product, by way of a musical motif in crescendo encryption also as a question, the question of analyzing the formula of course subject Knowing the dimension of ambiguity.
In perspective, to make an analysis, beginning to recover the way I laid siege to the problem: Does the formulation of the subject supposed to know coupled Lacan involves the ambiguity? Perhaps the joint that was suffering in the course of Lacan's teaching? Perhaps your grammar? Can the Castilian translation or interpretation was investing? Track split them in the way of teaching Lacanian Lacan sets out the coordinates where the diffraction formula that could result from the sense that it accords, in analytic practice.
In the first classes seminar "Identification" (1961) Lacan's formula incorporates the subject supposed to know to bridge the cogito of Descartes and even as a mark of philosophical prejudice, that clears a path that does not cross even with the transfer. In class on November 15 joins the notion, says, "pointed out this, we find that it becomes to find this, which is im-for-ever, we find that returns to find that level, the third thermal- my-not that we have highlighted the purpose of I lie, namely that it can be de-cir: * think * I know, and it fully deserves, to retain * *. In fact, there is pre-ci-sa-mind support everything that has developed some phenomenology with respect to the subject. And here I bring a formula that is Aque-lla-ber so that we will LLE-tives to return the next time, is: What is our business, and Co-Mo is given to us that, since we are psychoanalysts is that we must radically under-pour, make it impossible, this bias, the most radical ... and, then, is the pre - trial that is the real base of all this development philosophy, we can say that po- that is the Li-mite beyond which our experience has been laugh-ing, li-mi-te beyond which began the possibility of unconscious * *... is that it never has been, in the philosophical lineage that has been de-sa-oped from research calls I caught Cartesian-to, which has never been more than a uni-co subject to highlight, finally, under this form: the assumptions subject to know. " [1]
This formulation, Lacan traces not without irony, challenges the analyst to" radically subvert "the subject supposed to know framed within the tradition inaugurated by Descartes. And argues that the throughput of this bias, this border is the opening of the unconscious. However, it tends to stress that at the entrance to the installation occurs analysis of the transfer only when the potential analysand the analyst knowing you and that happened this way of interpretation is left open as a function of the analyst. Perhaps this way of interpretation is supported by the suggestive power of the master discourse, which solidifies the figure of the analyst in an idealization. Therefore I would like to question this certainty or illusion that is far from the Lacanian formulation of the seminar "Identification." Is that the analyst preserves any supernatural gift, nor is anointed by an aura of exegesis of the text of the analysand. The analysis presented as if it were a hermeneutical work finished and just magical pass the subject reveals the secret meaning of their occurrences, is a distortion of it.
If entry into the analysis prior to the subject led to an upheaval in the frame that generated by its ghost and demand is conceived by the very subject of free association (because of the enunciation of the fundamental rule and deployment) is necessary to isolate this demand and can not match. Freud argued that the onset of symptoms was something that allowed the analysis, the symptom is also a call directed to another but to get to the instance of an application form is necessary that the symptoms presented the subject articulate an enigma, it injected a question as such is the leaven of a response then transferred to the analyst. In this passage logical Lacan acknowledged what he called "transfer paradox", ie when the transfer is effective burst operates and its effects of suggestion.
The analyst's desire, and passion of ignorance, is the central operator demand blocking idealizing of love that leads the subject to identification with the analyst. The analyst becomes the "object" separator, and the subject access to the slopes drive taking a position on the object. This course
analysis does not point to tie the identifications and the effect of suggestion producer of meaning, the effect of the confusion between the object and the Ideal, but the subjective transformation by traversing the fantasy that finally reveals the drive.
In Seminar 17, "The other side of psychoanalysis" [2] , Lacan makes the discourse of love as the reverse speech analyst. The speech contains the domain master signifier located in the place of the agent, which holds significant joint and the emergence of meaning, producing an effect of suggestion by the action of taking the floor on the other (S1 --- S2) . The object and subject are in disjunction with the direction of lack of ghost prints the speech. Lacan in Proposition
of October 9, 1967 counters that "(...) the transfer is by itself objection intersubjectivity." Mario Barberis Bertteo mark "at the time Lacan called the word Mépris [3] , ie" mistake "or" escapism "(see footnote), the only link (prize) of a relationship established between two, that somehow appears as a (one subject in question: no intersubjectivity) and refracted into a multitude " [4] . For this proposes that instead of intersubjectivity is intersignificancia (significance referring to the characteristic crimp signifiers to enter discourse) occurs while the combination of two or more llanguage. Therefore it requires the arrival of the subject is the emergence of a significant non-sense, irreducible to appoint him as such. From that significant someone housed in game arises what Lacan called transfer effect, which is the transference love.
Lacan in the seminar "Identification" exposes its axiomatic definition of the signifier represents the subject for another signifier but the transfer still is not linked to the subject supposed to know. Past The seminar on anxiety, Lacan takes up the end of the seminar "The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis", in a twist that has the shaft to Descartes, such a formula in a novel, says "Who can feel fully invested in this subject course know? It is not the issue. The question is first, for each subject, which is home to address the subject supposed to know. Every time this function can be embodied, for each subject, someone, whoever, analyst or not, it is, the definition I just gave, it is, say, that the transfer from that moment is founded. " [5]
In "Notes on transference love " [6] (1914-1915) Freud points to the phenomenon of falling in love addressed to the analyst who is both priest and motor resistance. Therefore, the transfer has two central points: that significant remembrance facilitates the installation of the subject supposed to know and love, which is the repetition of an act. Freud notes that, to avoid the suggestion, the analyst's position at the demand of love should not be other than abstinence. Even explaining that this love, artifice of the analytic situation, no longer legitimately authentic love. It is also the repetition in the act which appears as a lack of knowledge, such as resistance factor. This is what Lacan called the closure of the unconscious that is presented as a moment of stopping the analytical and dialectical actualization of how the subject constitutes his objects.
From the start listening to the web is doomed significant that the subject was ordered to secrete from access to the fundamental rule; tissue where the holes are already those places of detention where there is the presence of the analyst. Freud argues that this associative chain detail is a direct cause of an occurrence on the person of the physician. The analyst presentifica an object which re-presents nothing stolen symbolic mediation.
seems that the association rule free metamorphosis in unsuccessful nests. It may be a device with structure of paradox as that which fosters and states (all that is happening without oversight and without pretense of coherence "freely associate") at short distance has melted down into lapses, forgetfulness, expressions that are misleading ... a demonstration [7] the unconscious and experience of analysis.
Now, it seems that resistance is also forcing us understand the SSS as an instance in which the analyst is invested by patients, with the knowledge and the truth about their symptoms. This sense of the term of resistance the return of the beginning of education Lacan when transposing the resistance side analyst. Renewing a sense of Lacan's notion of resistance to focus on the analyst in the "Presentation of the French translation of Schreber's Memoirs" (1966) says ("Speeches and texts 2" [8] ) "This may give a idea of \u200b\u200bthe reluctance of psychoanalysts to the theory on which their own training. ". That is, the analyst's resistance to psychoanalytic theory. The following excerpt rubrica this indication (taken from "Psychoanalysis and Education" page. 420) and reads: "... the lack of full understanding of these constituents in the analyst tends to the extent of its range confused with the limit that the postage due process analysis in the review. " [9] The direction of the treatment, too, surreptitiously eclipsed analyst's unconscious conflicts and veiled interstices of psychoanalytic theory.
The formula also grammatically insufflate SsS some misunderstanding which establishes transfer of the subject position. The verb "to know" can be understood as a transitive, active with an individual broker, which provides the knowledge of an additional object: the subject is supposed to know something, and then attention is directed towards that something that is to say. Conversely, "knowing" can also be understood as intransitive verb, no object complement, resulting in the questioning of the existence of a subject supposed to know. This two-pronged formula implies the existence of a split subject, latent in that state, but it can still be forged by the analytic act. The formula is given a stage to criticize or at least questioning what the time allowed. Lacan, the elapse of his teaching, is turning its interpretation is based on equivocation.
So the question does not refer to that function that embodies the analyst to be in place for another (another made up from the semantic dimension which covers the transfer) but to identify with such a presumption of knowledge. As a condition of the analysis instance that the person who arrives, pour their belief that the truth about her getting this "oraculizada" in the analyst. But the analyst is that nodal structure note that this action underlies the analysand. We must also consider that Lacan takes this act as a subjective error, an illusion by the subject, immanent in fact entered into the analytic and that has sealed his "initial agreement" [10] . That is, this error is subjective support the transfer and the initial pact is renewed in each intervention analyst bid precipitate the "assumption of the unconscious" shown as a knowledge in action. David Nasio detects that the course is "already there ... and waiting for the event."
What is relevant, or perhaps it takes a relay in the analytic situation is the analyst's function to move to embody the object with the transfer, ie, if it represents something to someone, which the patient will tend to forge "the sign of the lack of significant." The analyst is called in this place of lack (semblance of order a), if the SSS was that of which hung the desire of the analysand finds disintegrated. And the rest falls as analyst, pure object "a", precipitated because of the desire of the analysand.
In the speech, called "The mistake the subject supposed to know "statement at the French Institute of Naples, December 14, 1967. [11] Lacan states:" In fact, the position of the psychoanalyst is suspended at a very hiante ... In the structure of the mistake the subject supposed to know, the analyst (but who is and where and when it is, exhaust you lyre categories, namely, the indeterminacy of its subject, the psychoanalyst?), however, must find her cherry hiancia act and having its law. "
Lacan through its research and teaching attempt to account for the constitution of the subject. He noted that significant structure is supported in its pure differential signifier as it is, to the extent that is what the others are not. Positivization of that negativity, frees the signifier of any substance, while the curious materiality gives an essentially localized structure that supports their differential.
If what is at stake in the signifier is the plane of the effects of meaning, and if the repetition of the same breeds significant different senses, the signifier is different evidence of itself in the act of its own repetition. The spread of the consequences of denying the principle of identity, destabilizes any logical possibility total the set of signifiers. The Other is then barred, either because of their incompleteness (lack of a signifier to consummate the universe of meaning), either for its inconsistency (if that completeness is ensured by the inclusion of a heterogeneous element). Thus, from the differential structure of the signifier is to sift through the constitution of a subject that I could not identify him, but on condition excluded.
In the final cadence of this paper I return to the original title which Lacan announced his Seminar on Transfer: The transfer in subjective disparity, its presumed location, its technical tours ", this title speaks of a journey that could return in addressing the subject supposed to know, ie, correct position on certain vectors SsS: intersubjectivity but no "odd subjective" in the analytic situation, turn this situation as alleged in both "fictional network" (the dimension of deception that held the deployment of the transfer) and technical excursions and we must take a steep hike all theoretical outlining the concept of the SSS and on each "post theory" we must refer to the psychoanalytic experience. I hope I have made some opening for such work at the minimum trip on the equivocation the subject supposed to know. References
-Braunstein, Nestor "Proof of psychoanalysis" Nestor A. Braunstein, Frida Saal, Oyervides Pedro Crespo, etc. Editorial Siglo XXI, 1996.
- Freud, Sigmund Volume XII "Papers on psychoanalytic technique", Editorial Amorrortu, 2004.
-Lacan, J. Seminar IX "Identification" (1961-1962), unpublished translation of Rodríguez Ponte to the Freudian School of Buenos Aires
-Lacan, J. Seminar XXIII (1975-76) "The sinthome" Editorial Polity Press, 2005.
-Lacan, J. Seminar XVII (1969-70) "The reverse of psychoanalysis ", Polity Press Editorial, 2005.
-Lacan, J. Seminar XI "Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis", Editorial Polity Press, 2005.
-Lacan, J. XXVII Seminar unpublished "Dissolution" (1980).
-Lacan, J. "The mistake of the subject supposed to know" In: VVAA. Turning points of the analytic experience, Editorial Manantial, Buenos Aires, 1987.
-Lacan, J . 'The direction of the treatment and the principles of its power "(1958), Writings, Editorial Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires, 2005.
-Lacan, J." Writing I ", Editorial Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires, 2005.
Miller, JA "Intervention in the Days of studies of the ECF 2006." Transcription and notes by C. Bonningue. Digital text available at: www.elp-debates.com/e-textos/nuestroSsS-JAMiller.prn.pdf .
-Miller, JA "The real face and" exposed in the Hispanic Seminary of Caracas in 1992.
-Nasio, Juan David "The subject-supposed-to-know" in the voice and interpretation, New Editorial Vision.
-Nasio, Juan David "Topologería introduction to Jacques Lacan's topology", Editorial Amorrortu, 2007.
-Saal, Frida "Word of analyst", Editorial Siglo XXI, 1998.
[1] Lacan, J. Seminar IX "Identification" 1961-1962, unpublished translation of Rodríguez Ponte to the Freudian School of Buenos Aires, November 15 class.
[2] Lacan, J. Seminar XVII (1969-70) "The other side of psychoanalysis", Editorial Polity Press, 2005.
[3] Miller (In the article "The real face and" exposed in the Hispanic Seminary of Caracas in 1992) states that the word mistake does not properly translate the French word "Mépris." He says that means prize catch, take, dam and Mépris concerns what escapes, to capture that effort, and that the best translation is the escapism of the subject supposed to know, which is beyond the subject supposed to know, the analyst is determined by something beyond a vanishing point. Analytic training in relation to knowledge is not captured, but impossible to sift the impossibility of capturing all know, a hole in the know, there is a failure, an empty seat on which the analyst's position. This implies a vanishing point. Thus, in the training course meets the parent's name and the subject supposed to know, who are two ways to fill this gap, the gap in which is suspended the analyst's position.
[4] Bertteo Mario Barberis "The door the mistake "article published in http://mariobto.blogspot.com/2006/10/la-puerta-de-la-equivocacion.html.
[5] Lacan, J. Seminar XI "Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis", Editorial Polity Press, 2005.
[6] Freud, Sigmund "Observations on transference love," "Work on psychoanalytic technique", Volume XII, Editorial Amorrortu, 2004.
[7] "The introduction of the topology by Lacan in the early 1960, including recent elaborations on nodes, is in my opinion, an attempt to grasp the real and imaginary resources and, rather than imaginary, fantasy, resources will call topological artifacts. This approach to topology, which has more to do with drawing than with calculation, with the board that the paper, with the demonstration that the show, otherwise the belief that doing topology is, for analysts to science. To draw a line between the classical topology and we should proceed as in the case of linguistics and invent a name, eg topologería "Nasio, JD" Topologería introduction to Jacques Lacan's topology ", Editorial Amorrortu, 2007.
[8] Lacan, Jacques "Presentation of the French translation of Schreber's Memoirs," pp. 31-32, (1986) in "Interventions and Text 2."
[9] Jacques Lacan, "Psychoanalysis and Education" page. 420, Writing I, Editorial Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires 2003.
[10] In "Function and field of speech and language in psychoanalysis," Lacan says: "In fact the illusion that pushes us to find the subject is beyond the wall of language is the same reason that the subject believes that their truth is in us and given that we know in advance, and is also why it is open to objectifying our intervention. Surely it has to answer for their part, the subjective error, confessed in his speech or not, is inherent to the fact that he entered the analysis, and that it has closed its initial agreement. And you can not neglect the subjectivity of the moment, much less as we find in him the reason for what might be called the constituents of the transfer effects in that they are distinguished by an index of reality constituted the effects that follow them. "Writings I, Editorial Siglo XXI, 2003.
[11] Lacan, in 1967, the year that begins Act Analytical Seminar, writes the "Proposition" in December and writes a text called "The misunderstanding of the subject supposed to know "consistent with concern for the formation of the analyst. Lacan, J." The mistake of the subject supposed to know "In: VVAA. Turning points of the analytic experience, Editorial Manantial, Buenos Aires, 1987. p. 32.
0 comments:
Post a Comment