It is what Freud adds in his text; he is not content with just observing this little child, he brings his game back to the absence of his mother.
I mean the place where when one opens the door, one will find enough to sustain some exposes, some lectures, or seminars; one opens and one serves oneself with what one finds, and then one serves it back to the public, which wishes, indeed, to follow it. It is all the more remarkable that in his life, he is in no way at all an executioner.
And, thus, one has retained the fort-da as the illustration itself of the Freudian text, of this signifying text which responds to what one can call an axiom: First, one must pick up that he reduces it to a fantasmatization.
I would say that what concerns his practice as a mathematician was to read the authors where a certain symbol emerged, some axiom or some theorem. Why a beyond the fantasy? That is based on the illusion that I have denounced regarding Lacan, that he knew it already…that he already knew where he was going to end up.
This suffices to impose the dimension of desire of the mother which Lacan will take up elsewhere. That implies precisely that the only autonomy there is is symbolic autonomy. They consider that regarding them, Sade was a lamb.
It is obviously a game, but what does one mean when one says that it is a game? Basically, the object in the fort-da is analyzed as an object that only takes on its value as symbolized.
Thus, he had not completely lost his moral sense in the place of this fantasy. Now for the whole of these three seminars, he gives us, and after the fact, this valuable opposition of signifying insistence and imaginary inertia.
Freud did not try, doubtlessly, he held himself at a distance from this experimentation on man, even on the small child. Basically, has he made anything out of the fantasy?
The first question, let us say, has been what doctrine of the treatment to deduce from the unconscious structured like a language? It is clear that they are embarrassed since they present him to us as a great humanist; in any case, they show that they are reserving their aggressivity for Robespierre, Saint-Just, finally for all terrifying people.
What he revives in this way is the same thing as psychoanalysis itself. How does one leave the symbolic; can one touch the real? It is the power of the signifying pair. But, beginning with interpretation, one has the feeling that everything is possible in the analytic experience, including the assumption of castration and of death, and that its stress, in so far as this inertia takes a position more and more essential in his teaching, certainly, is the pessimistic accent that is carried over.
One way to do it, and it is the unrefined method, is to interpret by asking questions. That is not at all the slogan under which I imagined I was doing this course. Finally, one must say, they have their ears closed. What seemed, rather, to be the very prerogative of the Kleinians, was preserving the death drive.
This temptation has not stopped growing in the very moment, moreover, when the only concepts admitted, finally, remained Freudian, came from Freud. Besides, it carried with it, the imaginary terms where he situated it. Each time that a master signifier is detached from this starting complex that can be visiblethe subject finds once more, puts in order again, his position in the Other, this time by means of the fantasy.
It is a solution that one can call imaginary, evidently, in the fashion in which it enunciates itself; that can also be good if you lack a way to give an interpretation.
But you can imagine to yourselves what would happen if, in the middle of this game, you took the bobbin and put it in your pocket. We also give value in our way, starting with Lacan, of course, to the opposition of the axis of the symptom and to that of the fantasy. That has especially the effect of rendering us sensitive to everything which, from the subject of desire, only makes us glide into the signifier it is what I called the distracted aspect of the psychoanalysis of which one has the witness in the three inaugural works of Freud.
This means that Lacan has seen this occasion, this movement, begin and that he denounces those reading Fenichel rather than Freud. This is the same question, moreover, as what do I enjoy, if I dare to say it.
It is especially designated to valorize what Lacan did not hesitate to call the autonomy of the symbolic. In the beginning it seemed to him that it was important to attest to the supremacy of the signifier over the object.
There, as well, one perceives that the fantasy as such, and it is coherent I must say with the same approach made by Freud to this question, and it is precisely what Lacan said in the Sadian paradigm—that the fantasy is essentially a tempering of jouissance.
But, finally, it takes on its value of paradox exactly because it is thought of as starting with the signifier of which the minimum is 2.
Basically, his teaching is completely orientable. That certainly makes an illusion to the fact that for Freud the object is a profoundly lost object and, then, that one can accede to the object only by starting with the return of the object and not of its first donation.
In this regard, if you wish, one understands that is not a headshake? It suffices for that that one perceive what? What do I have?Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin Author’s Bio. translated by Gabrielle Shorr. Sublimation, Sublimierung, the word is in Freud, taken from his discourse on the art of his ultimedescente.com Kant, the sublime was distinguished from beauty by the tension that persisted in it while subsiding in beauty.
is and in to a was not you i of it the be he his but for are this that by on at they with which she or from had we will have an what been one if would who has her.Download