Unfortunately we suffered another spambot attack. Please be patient while we address this. -- 15 March 2019
Le savoir du psychanalyste
1971-1972 (126 pp.)-LE SAVOIR DU PSYCHANALYSTE (THE PSYCHOANALYST'S KNOWLEDGE)-ANONYMOUS VERSION, 1981 This was Lacan's first invitation to talk at Sainte-Anne since the 1963 breakup. The seven discussions that he led there reminded him first of all of his own beginnings as an intern at the Asiles, of his friends of the time, such as Henri Ey, and of the state of psychiatry in the 30s. It was, therefore, to the interns in psychiatry that he wished to address his talks, even if they were only "aI'! overwhelming minority" in the room, compared to the audience coming from die seminar held at the same time at the University of Paris at the Pantheon (86). The nature of his address gave a more direct style to the talks; he recalled with emotion or humor "these fifty-five years spent within these walls," and especially the cases of patients that he presented there; he enjoyed talking as if in the staff waiting room, or comparing "the incomprehension of Lacan" •• the incomprehension of mathematics" (would both be "a symptoln"?). In any case, his concern for simple formulations and a pedagogical progres- 232 DOSS I ER sion was obvious, without the nuances amI the difficulties of the reflection being sacrificed. Everything began with a clarification concerning "the ignorance linked to knowledge"; ignorance is a "true passion" that is made an "established knowledge" or it is a "learned ignorance" that is the highest knowledge. Then, sarcasm attacked antipsychiatry (67) (which would be "psychiatrery" [psychiatrerie]) in which one is more attentive "to the liberation of the psy�chiatrist" than concerned with "solving the problem of psychoses." Sar�casm attacked the trend of "nonknowledge" borrowed from a misunderstood G. Bataille. And what about psychoanalysis? It stood "on the perceptible boundary between truth and knowledge," at least for him and for those who followed him .... Lacan then embarked on a recapitulation of the problems raised by Freud's texts and by his own texts since the thesis on paranoia (2). He went over them as he went over his main concepts, in an order that was not chronological but that was the order of his present questioning, with re�definitions, responses to the critiques or misunderstandings, and rectifica�tions. Little by little, he led his discourse toward the importance of logic for the construction of the true analytic theory and particularly the absence of sexual relation, concerning which he explained himself in a more precise and sometimes different way than in the previous texts. This is why these discus�sions should be read carefully. He called these talks a "teaching speech," "at the most elementary level." Are such terms degrading? As far as I am con�cerned, I have found a number of analyses there that shed light on more "logical" seminars and also on the seminar Encore (84). Here is an example: "I am not saying that speech exists because there is no sexual relation. This would be absurd. I am not saying either that there is no sexual relation because speech is there. But there is no sexual relation because speech functions on that level that analytic discourse reveals to be specific to speaking human beings, that is, the importance, the preeminence of what makes sex a semblance, the semblance of men and women." Lacan thought that, with the objet a, he had created the matheme of psychoanalysis; he then wanted to create that of sexual jouissance and of its articulation with castra�tion. He started with a ritornello, "Between man and love, there is woman; between man and woman, there is a world; between man and the world, there is a wall," in order to conclude that "what is at stake in a serious love rela�tionship between a man and a woman is castration" and that "castration is the means of adaptation to survival" (but whose?). The love letter is a "/ettre d' a-/1Iur";' is this why he said that he was addressing himself to the walls of the chapel (in the two senses of the word chapelle in French: chapel and clique) where he was holding these discussions? What are the four walls that x. The Ie lire d'amour, love letter, becomes the Ie lire d'a-mur, where mur means wall in French.
The WorU of Jacqu8I Lacen 233 lock us up? They are the four fundamental terms that formed the four dis�courses since L' Envers de la psychanalyse (73). Here, he named them differ�ently: semblance, jouissance, truth, plus-de-jouir. and the rectangle was not closed. He almost managed to convince us that "only the matheme ap�proaches the knowledge of truth," by showing how, concerning sexual rela�tions, his logico-mathematical formulas were untranslatable into the logic of propositions; he subtly analyzed the impossibility of defining the relation be�tween the two sexes in terms of negation, conjunction, disjunction, and implication. In psychoanalysis, the phallic function dominates both partners equally, but it does not make them different: the difference has to be looked for somewhere else. On one side, there is the One [/'Un], on the other there is nonexistence. What relation can be established between one and zero (cf. Pierce for whom it makes two)? However, the One in which the organ only acts as "a tool" around which "analytic experience induces us to consider that everything that is uttered about sexual relation revolves," is rather "the at-least-One" I/' au�moins-Un), "the exception that confirms the rule" of everybody's castration. The figure of the ancestral Father emerges here, as the noncastrated One, who is also /' epater, the pater fami/ias who amazes and impresses the others, his slaves.Y As for woman, if "she is not-aU" and is nonuniversal, she "conceals a jouissance that does not depend on the One, a properly feminine jouis�sance." The fact that her jouissance is dual is a "landmark in the whole." Lacan said that when one talks about sex or love, one always talks about the other sex. Is that not what he was doing here, by wondering at such length about Woman? Behind all this, is there not another question; what is a man (un homme) who is not the One of the Father or the Zero of woman? That is to say, what about "castration"? There was no answer. Is Ya d'/'Un (there's something of One) a Master-signifier? "This year, I have reached the point where I only have the choice between that ... or worse." He was caught in undecidability between the "not-aU" (pas-tout] and the "not-one" (pas-une]! He admitted that he could not link the two "horizons of signifier" that he bracketed together: the maternal (material) and the mathematical (the Real written?). Let us stop here: "If there is no relation between the two, even in . the sexual act, each partner remains one." The embarrassment and the ob~s�sive fear before femininity, Woman, a woman, or women are characteristic of this period of Lacanian thinking ..
04 novembre 1971
02 décembre 1971 Seminaires_pdf/19-bis-le%20savoir%20du%20psychanalyste/XIXbis-SP-2-02121971.pdf Seminaires_HTML/19bis-SP/SP06011972.htm
06 janvier 1972 Seminaires_pdf/19-bis-le%20savoir%20du%20psychanalyste/XIXbis-SP-3-06011972.pdf" Seminaires_HTML/19bis-SP/SP03021972.htm
03 février 1972 Seminaires_pdf/19-bis-le%20savoir%20du%20psychanalyste/XIXbis-SP-4-03021972.pdf Seminaires_HTML/19bis-SP/SP03031972.htm
03 mars 1972 Seminaires_pdf/19-bis-le%20savoir%20du%20psychanalyste/XIXbis-SP-5-03031972.pdf Seminaires_HTML/19bis-SP/SP04051972.htm
04 mai 1972 Seminaires_pdf/19-bis-le%20savoir%20du%20psychanalyste/XIXbis-SP-6-04051972.pdf Seminaires_HTML/19bis-SP/SP01061972.htm
01 juin 1972 Seminaires_pdf/19-bis-le%20savoir%20du%20psychanalyste/XIXbis-SP-7-01061972.pdf