Changes

[[Lacan ]] wrote this article for the Encylopedie Medico-Chirurgicale, at H. Ey's [[request]]. He denounced the [[notion ]] of typical [[therapy ]] defended by the S.P.P. In 1960 the article was removed from the encylopedia, under the pressure of "a certain majority defined by our critique," he said in [[Ecrits]]. Indeed, using an investigation conducted by Glover in England (1934), he violently de�nounced those who were "screens of nullity," incapable of spreading the [[truth ]] of [[psychoanalysis ]] [[outside ]] the [[official ]] circles because it was misunderstood [[inside ]] the official societies. Against "their [[practical ]] formalism," he claimed Ferenczi and his "[[psychoanalytic ]] elasticity" as his [[authority]], and he ulti�mately argued for "a [[theoretical ]] [[formalization]]" that alone could be the guar�antor of the "[[ethical ]] rigor" that separates psychoanalysis from [[psychotherapy]]. For the first [[time]], he expressed a certain distrust before any innovation "mo�tivated by recovery." Seminaire /I (27), with the [[Schema ]] L .• required that, for the [[psychoanalyst]], "the ego be [[absent]]." Here, it is enough that "the mirages of his [[narcissism ]] have become [[transparent ]] to him," so as to make him "permeable to the [[speech ]] of the [[other]]." Everything takes [[place ]] in [[language]], including "the [[drives ]] discovered in [[analysis ]] according to the vicissitudes of [[logical ]] substitu�tions, in their source, their direction, their [[object]]." But what is speech? Since Le My the du nevrose (22) reference to [[Heidegger ]] was constant. Lacan kept referring to him, in spite of Hyppolite who did not recognize in the philoso�pher "the [[symbolic ]] abolition" and the "inaugural assertion" that Lacan saw in him linking [[the symbolic ]] [[order ]] and the [[death ]] [[instinct ]] (27). There is already an indication of the famous expression, "there is no [[metalanguage]]," in the

following lIeideggerian tones: "No [[concept ]] gives us the [[meaning ]] of speech, not even the concept of the concept, for speech is not the meaning of meaning, but it gives its support to meaning in the [[symbol ]] which it embodies through its act." Then, at the origin, is there language as [[system ]] or is there speech? Besides, the end of the analysis, defined as the [[subjectivation ]] of one own's death, refers back to the [[philosopher]]'s "[[being]]-for-death." What is the psy�choanalyst's [[knowledge]]? ... A learned [[ignorance]]. What [[about ]] his tech�nique? ... It is "the only one that is appropriate to my [[personality]]" -[[others ]] may prefer to make other arrangements concerning their [[patients ]] ...