LISANDRO TAKE
"Whoever wants to learn from books the noble game of chess soon notice that only the openings and endings agree a systematic and comprehensive, while the declines the infinite variety of moves that follow the opening " [2]
When analysts want to form as , throughout this training (which is not limited to time at university), we crossed by a large amount of theory on various topics and authors, texts that speak of the many factors that are articulated in an analysis on various cases Clinical criticism of some authors to others, and to applications of psychoanalytic theory to other fields of knowledge (politics, philosophy, sociology, etc.).. Finally, we acquire diverse knowledge of psychoanalysis is supposed to allow us to exercise the "right" practice. Now, on the other hand many authors both as teachers and professionals always take care to emphasize the importance of not generalizing, to remember that each case is unique and that what applies (or could say it works) for a patient does not have (and I emphasize having a mandate superego) reason why govern for another. Considering this we can begin to elucidate what kind of difficulty we find: the theory which we are given and transmitted both by authors as teachers present us as useless if we follow the policy not to generalize, since all theory is a generalization (as a maximum) that allows it to be applied to each case, and thus would fall into the false belief that it is possible to practice psychotherapy without any theoretical support. We may also deny the warning and try to apply the theory in each case so that we would be encountering a "psychoanalytic method" that could be applied equally to every situation. But even worse, with a "psychoanalytic method" would be ignoring that the same theory tells us regarding the non-generalization. So why apply theory would not heed it? Are we missing something about this theory? Could it be that we should do a review of concepts to better understand this apparent contradiction?
If we start from Freud, in relation to psychoanalytic clinic we have a series of "advice" as he calls them, about what "should" do and what not in an office. We thus tips such as how to take notes on the analysis, the effects of the buildings that make the patient the analyst on the frequency of meetings, etc. But it is Freud himself who warns against taking these indications as advice and not applicable for all axioms, which must ask ourselves why they worked so well for him and not for other analysts [3] ? What is the real value of this advice? Is it just the simple directions or something else that eludes us at first sight?
On the other hand, one of these signs have a special status to the other, that warns us not to pay particular attention to anything the patient says, is called "floating attention" and its counterpart in the analysand, the "free association" (the tell the patient to say everything that comes to mind in the story without missing anything). Maintain floating attention would not only not particularly think anything the other says, but even thinking about the theory itself, as this would deprive our attention (floating) of the discourse of the analysand. So how do psychoanalytic practice in the context of these paradoxes? This is where we are presented with the Lacanian notion of the "analyst's desire" that will allow us to advance our elucidations, a notion which is linked to the Freudian concept of "floating attention."
When we speak of desire in psychoanalysis we are referring just to the purest of the subject, that which distinguishes it as such and is only possible because that guy something missing, missing that allows (and creates) a search, the search for what is not possible to find that nothing which becomes unbearable for the subject, and therefore must be evening, something to which the subject needs to defend himself to avoid falling into the distress be present to take notice at the end there is nothing more than nothing. It is to this reality that the role of the Oedipus complex and castration complex takes meaning, creating the false promise that somewhere is what we are forbidden [4] . This prohibition is taking shape in the subject's superego, the superego product of their parents, the legacy, interdiction belonging to the culture that found its ultimate expression in the prohibition of incest and patricide, and that after passing through the castration complex are introjected. We see how, after all, are the same instances intrasubjective (ego and superego) that made the defense against this wish, which would be completely freed the subject to its destruction [5] . But this defense is not free, being that it costs the subject's liberty by being condemned to perpetual slavery to another.
We can see how everything is presented as a maximum, as a rule, as dogma, as a "duty", they are different manifestations of the mandates I bid the superego in the opposite direction to his desire, by preventing the emergence of the subject (subject always of desire). Right here is where psychoanalysis comes into play, allowing the subject to reflect on the various masks that line (and line) these prohibitions in oedipal development and allow the emergence of the subject. But how is this done? Does the analyst has a "secret recipe" that is veiled for the patient and allow him to be fully aware of their unconscious?
Now it is here where the analyst's desire and articulate floating attention. Care which would enable the release would be just floating the analyst (the person) to his desire. For this, as we said, he needs to go through an instance of personal analysis (as indicated by Freud) to not be submissive to their own mandates superego. Anything that tells the analysand that is unbearable to the ego of the analyst (that which prevents the emergence of desire), can not be heard by the analyst (function) and impede the progress of the analysis on the risk of falling production acting out. Is what Freud famously says, "the patient's resistances are the resistances of the analyst"
After these small clarification we are able to understand the risks involved in taking psychoanalytic theory as a maximum, making psychoanalysis a method applicable to all cases alike. If the analyst was constantly thinking about the theory, when to intervene and when not to, what to say and what not, would not only restricting the floating attention but to transform the theory into a superego injunction, mandate that we know is the zoom function to analyst their desire generating resistance in listening to the patient.
But do not make mistakes. The theory that should not become a method (as an impediment to the analysis) does not imply that it is useless. That's why has been coined the notion of "address the cure "when talking about how to handle an analysis. Treatment should not be conditioned step by step through the theory, but you need to know where we started and where we go, the role of theory is not to coerce the treatment but to act as a compass in the call address cure. As Silvia says Bleichmar "(...) is not possible-world knowledge and the same failures of this knowledge, its limits and paradoxes, without the presence of a previous speech, which operates as guarantor and organizer of perception [6] ". From this we deduce that there is no knowledge (universal) about the plight of the patient, there is nothing as the scriptures. There was no point to his analysands tell analyst what kind of structure has, or what their assumptions about their childhood trauma. But then how do psychoanalysis?
is here, back to basics, we can understand what Freud did when they did what they did [7] .
When we read Freud always put aside the most important of his writings when he wrote it to him from his desire. There was no factor that conditioned to engage in hysterical rather than their own desire (we can not ignore the economic plight in their principles and how easy it overwhelmed him would have been mainly been devoted to neuroscience). That desire brought into play in the analysis allowed to listen to patients from elsewhere, generating interventions, interpretations and constructions which, being products of each particular situation analysis, what emerged in the communication between unconscious, as Freud said , had their particular effectiveness, but to be written in an attempt to transfer, the only factor, part of the experience lost, effectively ceases to produce its effect. There is no a priori truth about the plight of the subject. There is a truth that must be sought in the patient's unconscious belongs to the past. What is generated an analysis is the production of new knowledge about the truth that is lost. The take notice to patients about their childhood traumas, making the unconscious conscious, it has more value than to explain how its structure is always hysterical positions in a relationship of desire rejection [8] . We can then visualize how the systematic accumulation of knowledge (theory, experience with patients, etc..) Has no value if the analyst is not willing to listen to what emerges in the analysis, there is a theory that can say about what will result in the cure, as Lobov said: "The experience always opposes the surprise" [9] . Hence the Freudian explanation as relevant shows in the title of his writing, "Recommendations to Physicians on psychoanalytic treatment" are just tips, prior knowledge only relevant if we are willing, as Lacan says, to challenge them every time in practice.
[1] Written in the context of production within the device called "Cartel" and the seminar in the current year issued by Piazza and Roberto Cabrera Eugenia Morales on the psychoanalytic clinic.
[2] Freud, Sigmund. "On the initiation of treatment "(1913). Amorrortu Editore.
[3] clear example of this difference can be found in what Freud says about the frequency of the sessions, tells us that should be Monday to Saturday except Sundays and holidays, but today we know that the sessions are usually once a week, and yet we take notice of the positive results obtained in these tests.
[4] Ban fictitious since, as we said, there is nothing to prohibit
[5] To better understand what I mean by the "total liberation of desire" to see the explanation given by Lacan in his seminar The psychoanalytic ethics on "pure desire"
[6] Bleichmar, Silvia. Of belief prejudice. Country pain and then .... Thrush Books. Buenos Aires. 2007
[7] Making clear reference to the question Marité Colovini audience in his seminar "Time and address issues of healing:" The ultimate ethical question is: What do we do when we do we do? "
[8] Let's be clear, if these communications were effective no analyst would need to be analyzed, enough to read the complete works of Freud (or else the interpretation Lacanian) to get rid of all evil.
[9] Lobov, Jorge. The accounts of the clinic. Conjectural Magazine No. 39. Publishing Site. 2003
0 comments:
Post a Comment