Changes

Jump to: navigation, search
no edit summary
First, let me put forth some advice about [[structure]], which is the subject matter of our meeting. It may happen that there will be mistakes, confusion, more and more approximative uses of this notion. , and I think that soon there will be some sort of fad about this word. For me it is different because I have used this term for a very long time&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; since the beginning of my teaching. The reason why something about my position is not better known is that I addressed myself only to a very special audience, namely one of [[psychoanalysts]]. Here there are some very peculiar difficulties, because [[psychoanalysts ]] really know something: of what I was talking to them about and that this thing is a particularly difficult thing to cope with for anybody who practices [[psychoanalysis]]. The subject is not a simple thing for the [[psychoanalysts ]] who have something to do with the subject proper. In this case I wish to avoid misunderstandings, <i>méconnaissances[[méconnaissance]]s</i>, of my position. <i>Méconnaissance</i> is a French word which I am obliged to use because there is no equivalent in English. <i>Méconnaissance</i> precisely implies the subject in its meaning&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and I was also advised that it is not so easy to talk about the &quot;subject&quot; before an English-speaking audience. <i>Méconnaissance</i> is not to <i>méconnaitre</i> my subjectivity. What exactly is in question is the status of the problem of the structure.
<i>[[Méconnaissance]]</i> is a French word which I am obliged to use because there is no equivalent in [[English]]. <i>[[Méconnaissance]]</i> precisely implies the [[subject]] in its [[meaning]]; and I was also advised that it is not so easy to talk about the "[[subject]]" before an [[English]]-speaking audience. <i>[[Méconnaissance]]</i> is not to <i>méconnaitre</i> my [[subjectivity]]. What exactly is in question is the status of the problem of the [[structure]].
When I began to teach something about Psychoanalysis I lost some of my audience, because I had perceived long before then the simple fact that if you open a book of Freud, and particularly those books which are properly about the unconscious, you can be absolutely sure&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;it is not a probability but a certitude&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;to fall on a page where it is not only a question of words&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;naturally in a book there are always words many printed words&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;but words which are the object through which one seeks for a way to handle the unconscious. Not even the meaning of the words, but words in their flesh, in their material aspect. A great part of the speculations of Freud is about punning in a dream or lapsus, or what in French we call <i>calembour, homonymie</i>, or still the division of a word into many parts with each part taking on a new meaning after it is broken down. It is curious to note, even if in this case it is not absolutely proven, that words are the only material of the unconscious. It is not proven but it is probable (and in any case I have never said that the unconscious was an assemblage of words, but that the unconscious is precisely structured). I don't think there is such an English word but it is necessary to have this term, as we are talking about structure and the unconscious is structured as a language. What does that mean?
Root Admin, Bots, Bureaucrats, flow-bot, oversight, Administrators, Widget editors
24,654
edits

Navigation menu