Clinical outbreaks of
Bernard Casanova
Do you go crazy, stupid psychiatrist,
thought I thought I was Jesus Christ?
I just said, and I repeat, I
, A ntonin Artaud, 50 winters, I remember
Golgotha \u200b\u200b...
vécu Histoire d'Artaud-Momo
... that improperly called the clinic ...
(Lacan, May 14, 1969)
After the time - what time? say after time we hear and transcribe and read Lacan, after the time that we examined, we interpret it and we quote, paraphrase it, that comment, it thesaurisamos bibliographies and, after the time we do three or four knots or chains or braids, that undo that untied, which triggers and untwisted, sometimes even in color, then time we do bands where the right is the reverse, after the time that we toramos in holes autopenetramos us in space or in bottles without mouth or ass ... (I say that not so long ago, but still long) - after all this time, you might think that what we call clinically and by habit without knowing the reason, going to move significantly, that " pernepsi "-taking of acrophonic another author that neologism to describe the clinical triad perversion, neurosis, psychosis, severe perturrbaciones going to sign, like storms or storms, or if not break, you might even think this division, coding, classification pernepsi going to explode, to explode with all these developments contributed Lacan. More precisely still, you might think 'that the arrival at the scene of the agenda consisting psychoanalytic real, symbolic and imaginary, and not allowed to work as before, and that RSI could no longer working (as) with pernepsi.
But, more incredible, however unlikely it may seem, has not moved a hair, even a brief tremor, not the slightest disturbance in pernepsi, what luck! would have achieved the remarkable feat of being unable to ignore the RSI, without leaving pemepsi. In principle, I ask (perhaps), why thus approached the triad and Lacanian clinical trilogy and place them in a kind of opposition? Is that at this point is something that bothers me for some time.
doubts
To put it too quickly, you should know if you choose to think two or three, that it seems a bit simple, but I wonder if my discomfort is not located exactly at that place. Certainly
both the ternary and this trilogy is three, but the tripartite made affects two quite different fields: the classification table pernepsi since ordering the problems of the soul (also applies to disturbances of the mind or the psychic apparatus dysfunction), represents two, the dualism of body and soul (psyche if you will), is what is commonly called-in universities, hospitals, manuals of psychiatry and psychology, worldly evenings, etc .- psychopathology (sorry this review elementary, but it is necessary to raise the issue that bothers me.) Psychoanalysts, say, the Lacanian, say so certain Lacanian - bold as they are, they will say about the psychopathology simply does not exist, or psychopathology, or psychological, but-and this is what bothers me-that does not stop them gently immersed in pernepsi.
RSI, however, suggests three, but not three parts of the soul, or three pieces of who knows what the psychic apparatus (the Lord Changeux, for example, along with several others, is in the process of inculcating ) but three of the speaking being. And perhaps not stated clearly this enormity: RSI is the ruin of the soul, the destruction and disappearance of the psychic apparatus.
Then nothing is the same, or better, and nothing should be as before, since it has been two to three, but it seems that everything continues to quietly ... i That is what bothers me! If RSI brings something new while on the speaking being ternary (parlêtre) and no longer the man's psyche, let us say rude and quickly that way, can you still use the good picture pernepsi classifying the states of the soul? How do psychoanalysts, to assume at first that there psychogenesis, and then halfway through, used in the clinic, we use that word-elements which assume that there? Surely not intended to bring together psychoanalysts RSI with this dualism, we risk another word psicosomáticol. But perhaps after reflecting and examine the topic reveals that yes. As Lacan says "we need the soul like the skin of the dog tick."
So the outbreak of RSI in psychoanalysis, does not seem to alter anything Freudian psychopathology, and therein lies my discomfort. Well, remember that the division into perversion, neurosis, psychosis, Freud, but Freud is completely at least Freud has confirmed and strengthened, it is he to whom we owe the strength and durability of these boxes, where each can be placed or place to another, all the others. One may wonder if it's an old survival, tenacious, tight as a tick, the freudolacanismo desperate. In this point, Freud failed to be moved, could not or did not want to, move, as if, acrobatic, we were caught with one hand and the Lacanian triad another Freudian psychopathology. My discomfort is Freudian-Lacanian?
This last time I held hands a book, recently published, entitled Clinique Psychanalytique. El au tor is someone who has read much to Lacan, the proof is that recently-published with the same editor-two-volume introduction to the reading of Lacan and, with another editor, a code comprehensive bibliography (including postcards) Lacan's work. The title clearly psychanalitique Clinique catches my attention, but, horror, what I see on the cover? A pipe dream, a nightmare vision: two-headed celebrity-embedded into each other, or as if emerging from the other teratological head monster with three eyes and two mouths ... representation, the image of the Freudian-Lacanism! Nevertheless, I read a bit: for example, the author speaks, having summoned to Lacan, 1953, of "intersubjective relationship, ie the transfer" (p.l9) and after "relating psychoanalytic that be understood with the "Table of semiology and psychopathology dela nosography which results from it (p. 42), so the analysis should be coupled to semiology, the science of signs, and the classification of diseases, classification of disease, how fortunate that everything can fit as well! Then it is "specific psychosexual organization" of the wicked; everyone knows that for psychoanalysts is terribly psycho sexual!
You get a lot of different information by mail, provided of course appear in some files. Thus, a new newspaper has just appeared: the Journal français de psychiatrie, with scientific and editorial committee impressive, and clearly states that this periodical will be both "clinical"-that is concrete, "scientific" - How not to be? - And "psychoanalytic"-for the same price. Here is a newspaper of psychoanalytic psychiatry, and surprise surprise, we learned that two of the JFP directors are former members of the former VET that disturbed me a bit.
in my postal box I also found a brochure of a "Franco-American psychoanalysis, very beautiful, expandable, with French and American flags in color; theme of the meeting:" The state limits, "but if While limits have an "s", is as everyone knows, the limit between "ne" and "psi" that awarded when you're in certain states, not that you ask to be there in that position uncomfortable and even dangerous, sometimes leaning toward "ne" and others to "psi", but we have accepted, everyone should be classified, so that no clear symptoms and frankly do not express side are, we put a ride on the barrier. In the "Meeting", and noted that this time psychoanalysis was chairing the meetings attended, oh surprise, former members, more or less known, the ex-EFP, and all these people could meet with the collaboration of laboratories pharmacists who, just as things were well done-selling drugs such bad states. All that further fueled my discomfort.
One way, but certainly valid enough, to follow the evolution of psychoanalysis is to read good correspondence. For example just appeared, under the direction of "a former member of the EFP, an" Introduction to the works of "... seven great psychoanalysts. We learn so there's seven major psychoanalysts! (Game: guess who they are, I give aid: they are all dead, a necessary condition, but certainly not sufficient to be great). It is clear that this is "reviving the soul of each author" (sic), and appears not only "the work discussed, but also (...] the internal image of the author studied (Resic) The book is intended "to both the student and the restless ... psychoanalyst confirmed" ... that should work.
But we must return to that great divide, to the great dichotomy (say Western) humanity into two "osis" (for "per" stands by "ne", between pre-and ne is a relationship, they understand, they wink, sometimes envious, almost interchangeable symptoms, there are three borders in pernepsi, but one: bolt / psi, the criminal psychiatric expertise, "he said they now ask you some skills especially psychoanalysts, often remind us: those who can respond, and deciding that can not answer for their acts, is between two "osis" where there is division.) Leaving aside the glucose and other sugars, the suffix "osis" connotes, in the vocabulary of Internal Medicine, the non-inflammatory, non-acute, and because of that long, even chronic, a "condition" is opposed to suffix "itis" which observes the acute case, inflammation. Thus, there is arthritis and osteoarthritis, dermatitis and dermatosis, etc. And I realize that the term psychosis, which organized the occasion (if not current psychoanalysts would not be present) many symposia, conferences, meetings (sometimes Europeans!), Presentations, magazines, etc .- is a "condition prolonged "contained in a list of thirty other diseases (cancer, heart ...) whose treatment costs are reimbursed one hundred percent by social insurance, that too is psychosis and then derive many consequences that should be left aside.
I say (perhaps) that is elemental and fundamental to the direction of the treatment to distinguish neurosis from psychosis, and it is this knowledge, added (no doubt), which allow interpretation and not another, because in either case, the transfer, subject, object and many other beautiful things, are presented in different ways and thus to cure, and so on. (sorry, I acknowledge that I go a little fast, I recommend you read important and serious jobs that already exist on the subject.) Is that it bothers me too, for what?, Does it necessary that the first preliminary session, the analyst say, the diagnosis established? What you know to put the analysis in the appropriate area on one side or the other of the border, and in each area, we also find a good box, then to measure, calculate and adjust their interventions? I tend to think that the first objective of the analyst-at once the simplest and the most impossible-is not to interfere in what is in the analysis. This preliminary knowledge of the analyst on the analysand's place in the classification pernepsi bothers me, then it might be an obstacle, too preliminary to any analysis. Ideally, the analyst learn not know and not to listen pernepsi as you say.
Since the end please refer to the symptom, the symptom of the talk so cheerfully and with such subtlety and scholarship, almost to the point of sanctifying, that symptom emerged from the symbol, but distinct from the symbol to which nevertheless is knotted (Lacan, 1975). A symptom is not returned in the psychoanalytic sense if it is captured in his "significant role" could even point out that there are only symptoms from time goes to a psychoanalyst is someone who will pick up in their role as significant, so that the analyst (psychoanalysis) maybe is not quite right track, as Lacan says in "the story absolutely crazy" that is to consult a psychiatrist to "fix things" - if it holds, if you catch the symptoms in the knowledge of psychopathology, if translated, in its interior forum (!), that someone says in a phobic or psychotic symptoms, such is because then it is all cooked. A symptom, a symptom phobic or psychotic, does not mean anything if you have a "significant role", that means, I think, that the symptom not enter into any symptoms and is heterogeneous nosography all, there can be, there are no symptoms psychotherapy.
Sometimes I have the impression that some people believe that psychopathology and the classification of diseases there, and this belief also bothers me, but probably necessary in its role of resource, a resource reference that would allow, for example, avoid the burden " one half of the symptom ', which is nevertheless a condition that the symptom is analyzable, but it is too heavy a burden, knowing that a good benchmark helps support.
One day in April 1978, Lacan gave a nosographic good kick to the building, knocking the famous barrier than previously thought untouchable that day he said that the neurotic who is suing a psychoanalyst analysis - "absolutely crazy story" - "should be called (the) psychotic." Lacan had to be wrong in saying that (at a meeting of analysts), is like a slip, because if it is a neurotic, if that is the other side, etc.. After fifteen years Lacan said that, so in passing (it was during the hearings on the pass in VET), there was time to replace the barrier and even repaint the wall ne / psi which otherwise hardly had cracked after this error, an error Lacan as well known make.
The "psychoanalytical" is a term that still sells well. I say that because it's a lot to hear it, read it, and I realize that is still attractive, meet people, like, no other party is necessary, add, mark well what belongs to the clinic and what not . Psychoanalysts deeply love that word. But even if it is put in front of an establishment, or qualifying examination, teaching a lesson, etc., The word denotes absolutely something medical. The "psychoanalytical" always refers to the medical psychoanalytic, unites, and to unite them, it relates to something you do not understand never finished, and that bothers me too, as Antonin Artaud, for example, as I recall, because I usually read these days, that was the tragic misunderstanding.
But then, I probably ask, what is there to clinical psychoanalysis?
Perhaps the only link, the only link between the "clinic" and the practice of psychoanalysis is etymological. Indeed, usually, but not necessarily, the analyst offers the other lying on what looks like a bed and in that position, talk. Lacan said, as always clearly and carefully, that "the psychoanalytic clinic is what is said in psychoanalysis, I have here a definition of the clinic with which I agree and comply, and added" the clinic is always tied to the bed ... and not has found nothing better than to lie to those who offered themselves for psychoanalysis ... "That would then be the reason for that lie there, and for that reason alone we can preserve, among our old furniture, clinic floor, there is a clinic and Kline the analyst's couch, both to moan: the bed of the subject, as it would also river.
Unbewusst
If not what is not conscious but a slip (une bévue) the clinic is no longer what it was and it's time Let's walk otherwise, because after time ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment