Changes

Before, the emphasis was placed on repetition, now it is placed on transference love, In <i>amour de transfert[[La relation d'objet]]</i>: both are inseparable, but the perspective changes. To insist on repetition means to refuse to see in the analytic situation an intersubjective rapport to be dealt with here and now. What speech constructed in the past can be deconstructed in the cure by speech: the cure is "pure symbolic experience." On the individual level, it allows for "the reshaping of the imaginary," on the theorethical level for an intersubjective logic to be constructed. Thus, analysis is described as [[Lacan]] provided a particular experience way of desire, on understanding the side paradoxical function of sexuality. Speech has an effect only after [[transference. For Lacan "it is from the position that transference bestows the analyst with that he intervenes ]] in transference itself," and "transference is interpreted on the basis of and with the aid of transference itself[[analytic]]al c[[ure]]." In "The direction of the treatment and the principles of its power" [[symbolic]] aspect (<i>Écrits: A Selection</i>[[repetition]]) Lacan presented countertransference as a resistance of it helps the analyst and raised [[cure]] progress by revealing the problem [[signifier]]s of the analyst[[subject]]'s desirehistory. Here, subjective disparity becomes the rule establishing dissymmetry between the two protagonists vis-à-vis desire: what the patient will discover through the disappointment of transference love. Because He argues that in the cure one learns to talk instead of making its [[imaginary]] aspect ([[love, in the end desire, which has been purified, is but the empty place where the barred subject accesses desire. We should note that training analysis does not put the analyst beyond passion; to believe that ]] and [[hate]]) it does would mean that all passions stem from the unconscious, acts as a notion that Lacan rejects. The better analysed the analyst is, the more likely he is to be in love with, or be quite repulsed by, the analysand. In training-analysis there will be a mutation in the economy of desire in the analyst-to-be: desire will be restructured, so that it will be stronger than passions. Lacan calls it the desire proper to the analyst[[resistance]].<br>In He uses [[Plato]]'s <i>[[The Symposium]]</i> to illustrate the rapport between analysand and analyst's position is identified with Socrates', while : Alcibiades occupies the position of the analysand, who after compares Socrates will discover himself desiring. "To isolate oneself with another so as to teach him what he is lacking anda box enclosing a precious [[object]], by the nature of transference, he will learn what he is lacking insofar as he loves: I am not here for his Good, but for him to love me, and for me to disappoint him."<br>Alcibiades desires because he presumes Socrates is in possession of the <i>[[agalma]]</i> - the phallus as desirable. But Socrates refuses the position of loved object to assert himself Just as desiring. For Lacan desire never occurs between two subjects but between Alcibiades attributes a subject and an overvalorized being who has fallen hidden treasure to the state of an object. The only way to discover the other as subject is "to recognize that he speaks an articulated language and responds to ours with his own combinations; the other cannot fit into our calculations as someone who coheres like us." Socrates, by shying away from Alcibiades' declaration, by refusing to mask so too the [[patient]] sees his lack with a fetish, and by showing him Agathon as the true [[object ]] of his love, shows [[desire]] in the [[analyst how to behave: such is the other aspect of "subjective disparity" taking place in analysis]]. There is no rapport between what the one possesses and what [[Lacan]] articulates the other lacks. The phallus, from being <i>[[objet a]]</i>, the imaginary object, emerges as the signifier of signifiers, as "the only signifier that deserves the role of symbol. It designates the real presence that permits identification, the origin of the Ideal-of-the-Ego on the side of the Other." There is a woman in with <i>The Symposium[[agalma]]</i>, Diotima, who speaks in the form [[object of myth. In the fable where female lack is confronted with male resources, the feminine first has an active role before the desirable masculine. The reversal occurs because desire]] we seek in love one only gives what one does not have: the masculine, by shying away from the demand, is revealed as a subject of desire. Later, Lacan would make Socrates the model of hysterical discourse, but also of analytic discourse because he attains the knowledge, the episteme, of love[[other]].<br>

Before, the emphasis was placed on repetition, now it is placed on [[transference]] [[love]], <i>amour de transfert</i>: both are inseparable, but the perspective changes. To insist on [[repetition]] means to refuse to see in the analytic situation an [[intersubjective]] rapport to be dealt with here and now. What [[speech]] constructed in the past can be deconstructed in the [[cure]] by [[speech]]: the [[cure]] is "pure [[symbolic]] experience." On the individual level, it allows for "the reshaping of the [[imaginary]]," on the theorethical level for an intersubjective logic to be constructed. Thus, [[analysis]] is described as a particular experience of [[desire]], on the side of [[sexuality]]. [[Speech]] has an effect only after [[transference]]. For [[Lacan]] "it is from the position that [[transference]] bestows the [[analyst]] with that he intervenes in [[transference]] itself," and "[[transference]] is interpreted on the basis of and with the aid of [[transference]] itself." In "The direction of the treatment and the principles of its power" (<i>[[Écrits: A Selection]]</i>) [[Lacan]] presented [[countertransference]] as a [[resistance]] of the [[analyst]] and raised the problem of the [[analyst]]'s [[desire]]. Here, subjective disparity becomes the rule establishing dissymmetry between the two protagonists vis-à-vis [[desire]]: what the [[patient]] will discover through the disappointment of [[transference]] [[love]]. Because in the [[cure]] one learns to talk instead of making [[love]], in the end [[desire]], which has been purified, is but the empty place where the barred [[subject]] accesses [[desire]]. We should note that [[training analysis]] does not put the [[analyst]] beyond passion; to believe that it does would mean that all passions stem from the [[unconscious]], a notion that [[Lacan]] rejects. The better analysed the [[analyst]] is, the more likely he is to be in [[love]] with, or be quite repulsed by, the [[analysand]]. In training-analysis there will be a mutation in the economy of [[desire]] in the analyst-to-be: desire will be restructured, so that it will be stronger than passions. [[Lacan]] calls it the [[desire]] proper to the [[analyst]]. In <i>The Symposium</i> the [[analyst]]'s position is identified with Socrates', while Alcibiades occupies the position of the [[analysand]], who after Socrates will discover himself desiring. "To isolate oneself with another so as to teach him what he is lacking and, by the nature of [[transference]], he will learn what he is lacking insofar as he loves: I am not here for his Good, but for him to love me, and for me to disappoint him." Alcibiades desires because he presumes Socrates is in possession of the <i>[[agalma]]</i> - the [[phallus]] as desirable. But Socrates refuses the position of [[love]]d [[object]] to assert himself as desiring. For [[Lacan]] [[desire]] never occurs between two [[subject]]s but between a [[subject]] and an overvalorized being who has fallen to the state of an [[object]]. The only way to discover the other as subject is "to recognize that he speaks an articulated [[language]] and responds to ours with his own combinations; the other cannot fit into our calculations as someone who coheres like us." Socrates, by shying away from Alcibiades' declaration, by refusing to mask his [[lack]] with a fetish, and by showing him Agathon as the true object of his [[love]], shows the [[analyst]] how to behave: such is the other aspect of "subjective disparity" taking place in [[analysis]]. There is no rapport between what the one possesses and what the other [[lack]]s. The [[phallus]], from being <i>[[objet a]]</i>, the [[imaginary]] [[object]], emerges as the [[signifier]] of [[signifier]]s, as "the only [[signifier]] that deserves the role of [[symbol]]. It designates the [[real]] [[presence]] that permits [[identification]], the origin of the [[Ideal]]-of-the-[[Ego]] on the side of the [[Other]]." There is a [[woman]] in <i>The Symposium</i>, Diotima, who speaks in the form of [[myth]]. In the fable where female lack is confronted with male resources, the [[feminine]] first has an active role before the desirable [[masculine]]. The reversal occurs because in love one only gives what one does not have: the [[masculine]], by shying away from the [[demand]], is revealed as a [[subject]] of [[desire]]. Later, [[Lacan]] would make Socrates the model of [[hysteric]]al [[discourse]], but also of [[analytic discourse]] because he attains the [[knowledge]], the episteme, of [[love]]. Having managed to provoke "a mutation in the economy of his [[desire]]," the [[analyst ]] has access both to the [[unconscious ]] and to the experience of the [[unconscious ]] because, like Socrates, he has confronted the [[desire ]] for [[death ]] and achieved the "between-two-deaths" - <i>entre-deux-morts</i>. Having placed the [[signifier ]] in the position of the absolute, he has abolished "fear and trembling." "One puts one's [[desire ]] aside so as to preserve what is the most precious, the [[phallus]], the [[symbol ]] of [[desire]]." [[Desire ]] is only its empty place.