Changes

In '''[[Analysis Terminable and Interminable]],''' , [[Sigmund Freud]] reflects upon whether it is ever possible to discusses the question of whether it is ever possible to conclude an [[analysis]], or whether all [[analyses]] are necessarily incomplete.<ref>{{F}} ''Analysis Terminable and Interminable''. 1937. [[SE]] XXIII p.211</ref>

discusses the [[Lacan]]'s answer to this question of whether is that it is ever indeed possible to conclude speak of concluding an [[analysis]], or whether all analyses are necessarily incomplete (Freud, 1937c).

==The term '[[end Aim of analysis]]' (Fr. ''fin d'analyse'')Psychoanalytic Treatment==

analytic treatment To answer this question it is a logical necessary to distinguish between the [[processend of analysis]] which has an and the [[endof analysis|aim of psychoanalytic treatment]].

it is necessary to distinguish between the The [[end of analysis and the |aim of psychoanalytic [[treatment]]. The aim of psychoanalytic treatment is to lead the [[analysand ]] to articulate the [[truth]] about his [[desire]]. Any analysis, however incomplete, may be regarded as successful when it achieves this aim. The question of the end of analysis is therefore something more than whether a course of analytic treatment has or has not achieved its aim; it is a question of whether or not the treatment has reached its logical end-point.Lacan conceives of this end-point in various ways.

l. In the early 1950s, the end of analysis is described as "the advent of a true speech and the realisation by the subject of his history."<ref>E, 88</ref> (see Any [[speech]analysis])."The [[subject]] ... begins the analysis by speaking about himself without speaking to you, or by speaking to you without speaking about himself. When he can speak to you about himselfhowever incomplete, the analysis will may be over."<ref>Ec, 373, n. 1</ref>The end of analysis is also described regarded as coming to terms with one's own [[mortality]]successful when it achieves this aim.<ref>E, 104-5</ref>

2. In 1960, Lacan describes The question of the [[end of analysis as ]] is therefore something more than whether a state course of [[anxietyanalytic treatment]] and abandonment, and compares has or has not achieved its aim; it to the [[helplessness]] is a question of whether or not the human [[infanttreatment]]has reached its logical end-point.

Common to all these formulations is the idea that the end of analysis involves a change in the [[subjective positionLacan]] conceives of the [[analysand]] (the analysand's '[[subjective destitution]]'), and a corresponding change this end-point in the position of the [[analyst]] (the loss of [[being]] [Fr. ''désêtre''] of the analyst, the fall of the analyst from the position of the [[subject-supposed-to-know]]). At the end of the analysis, the analyst is reduced to a mere [[surplus]], a pure [[objet petit a]], the [[cause of desire|cause of the analysand's desire]].various ways:

Since Lacan argues that all psychoanalysts should have experienced :1. In the early 1950s, the [[processend of analysis]] is described as "the advent of analytic a true [[treatmentspeech]] from beginning to end, and the end of analysis is also realisation by the passage from [[analysand]] to [[analyst]]. "The true termination subject of an analysis" is therefore no more and no less than that which "prepares you to become an analysthis history."<ref>S7, 303{{E}} p.88</ref>

In 1967, Lacan introduced the procedure of the :<blockquote>"The [[passsubject]] as a means of testifying to ... begins the end of one's analysisby speaking about himself without speaking to you, or by speaking to you without speaking about himself. By means of this procedureWhen he can speak to you about himself, Lacan hoped to avoid the dangers of regarding the end of analysis as a quasi-mystical, ineffable experiencewill be over."<ref>{{Ec}} p. Such a view is antithetical to psychoanalysis373, which is all about putting things into wordsn.1</ref></blockquote>

:The [[end of analysis]] is also described as coming to terms with one's own [[mortality]].<ref>{{E}} p.104-5</ref> :2. In 1960, [[Lacan]] describes the [[end of analysis]] as a state of [[anxiety]] and abandonment, and compares it to the [[helplessness]] of the human [[infant]]. :3. In 1964 he describes it as the point when the [[analysand]] has "[[traverse]]d the radical [[fantasy]]."<ref>{{S11}} p.273</ref> :4. In the last decade of his teaching, he describes the end of analysis as "[[identification]] with the ''[[sinthome]]''", and as "knowing what to do with the [[sinthome]]."  ==Subjective Destitution== Common to all these formulations is the idea that the [[end of analysis]] involves a change in the [[subjective position]] of the [[analysand]] (the [[analysand]]'s '[[subjective destitution]]'), and a corresponding change in the position of the [[analyst]] (the loss of [[being]] [[Fr]]. ''[[désêtre]]''] of the [[analyst]], the fall of the [[analyst]] from the position of the [[subject-supposed-to-know]]).  At the [[end of analysis]], the [[analyst]] is reduced to a mere [[surplus]], a pure [[objet petit a]], the [[cause of desire|cause of the analysand's desire]].  ==Analytic Training== Since [[Lacan]] argues that all psychoanalysts should have experienced the process of [[analytic treatment]] from beginning to end, the [[end of analysis]] is also the passage from [[analysand]] to [[analyst]].  <blockquote>"The true termination of an analysis" is therefore no more and no less than that which "prepares you to become an analyst."<ref>{{S7}} p.303</ref></blockquote> ==The Pass== In 1967, Lacan introduced the procedure of the [[pass]] as a means of testifying to the [[end of analysis]]. By means of this procedure, [[Lacan]] hoped to avoid the dangers of regarding the [[end of analysis]] as a quasi-mystical, ineffable experience.  Such a view is antithetical to [[psychoanalysis]], which is all about putting things into words.  ==Identification with the Analyst==Lacan criticises those [[psychoanalystpsychoanalysts]]s who have seen the [[end of analysis ]] in terms of [[identification]] with the [[analyst]].  In opposition to this view of [[psychoanalysis]], [[Lacan ]] states that the "crossing of the plane of identification is possible."<ref>Sll, {{S11}} p.273</ref> Not only is it possible to go beyond [[identification]], but it is necessary, for otherwise it is not [[psychoanalysis ]] but [[suggestion]], which is the antithesis of [[psychoanalysis; ]]. <blockquote>"the The fundamental mainspring of the analytic operation is the maintenance of the distance between the I - identification - and the a."<ref>{{S11, }} p.273</ref></blockquote>  =='Liquidation' of the Transference==Lacan also rejects the idea that the [[end of analysis]] involves the 'liquidation' of the [[transference]].<ref>{{S11}} 267</ref> The idea that the [[transference]] can be 'liquidated' is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the [[transference]], according to which the [[transference]] is viewed as a kind of [[illusion]] which can be transcended.

Other misconceptions of the end of analysis which Lacan rejects are: "strengthening the ego", "adaptation to reality" and "happiness". The end of analysis is not Although [[analytic treatment]] involves the disappearance resolution of the particular [[symptomtransference]], nor relationship established with the [[cureanalyst]] of an underlying disease (e.g. , [[neurosistransference]]), since analysis is not essentially a therapeutic process but a search for itself still subsists after the [[truthend of analysis]], and the truth is not always beneficial.<ref>Sl7, 122</ref>