Difference between revisions of "Seminar III"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{S}}
 
{{S}}
[[Image:Sem3.jpg|325px|right]]
+
 
{| style="width:250px; border:1px solid #aaa;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;"
+
{| style="line-height:2.0em;width:100%;text-align:justify;border-spacing:8px;"
 +
|style="width:100%;border:0px solid #cccccc;background-color:#ffffff;vertical-align:top"|
 +
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:top;background-color:#ffffff"
 +
|-
 +
|style="text-align:justify;color:#000;line-height:2.5em;align:justify;"|
 +
{| align="center" style="width:250px; border:1px solid #aaa;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;"
 
|width="100px"|
 
|width="100px"|
 
|width="150px"|
 
|width="150px"|
Line 9: Line 14:
 
|}
 
|}
  
1955-1956
+
=====Psychosis=====
<b>Le séminaire, Livre III: Les psychoses</b>.<br>
+
'''[[Psychosis]]'' is one of three '''[[structure|clinical structures]]'''.  The other two are '''[[neurosis]]''' and ''[[perversion]]''. Each [[structure]] is distinguished by a different operation: [[neurosis]] by the operation of [[repression]], [[perversion]] by the operation of [[disavowal]], and [[psychosis]] by the operation of '''[[foreclosure]]'''. By way of [[foreclosure]] of the [[signifier]] of the [[Name-of-the-Father]] it is possible to understand [[psychosis]] and distinguish it from [[neurosis]].  
French: (texte établi par Jacques-Alain Miller), Paris: Seuil, 1981.<br>
 
English: <b>Book III: The Psychoses.</b> (edited by Jacques-Alain Miller), New York: Norton, 1993.
 
  
Psychosis is one of the three clinical structures, the one defined by foreclosure. The other two are neurosis and perversion. By way of forclosure of the signifier of the Name-of-the-Father it is possible to understand psychosis and distinguish it from neurosis. Foreclosure corresponds to Lacan's translation of <i>Verwerfung</i> (repudiaton). The Name-of-the-Father is not integrated in the symbolic order of the psychotic, it is foreclosed: a hole is left in the symbolic chain. In psychosis "the unconscious is present but not functioning." The psychotic structure results from a malfunction of the Oedipus complex, a lack in the paternal function: the paternal function is reduced to the image of the father (the symbolic reduced to the imaginary).<br>
+
=====Foreclosure=====
 +
'''[[Foreclosure]]''' corresponds to [[Lacan]]'s translation of ''[[Verwerfung]]'' ([[repudiaton]]). The [[Name-of-the-Father]] is not integrated in the [[symbolic]] [[order]] of the [[psychotic]], it is [[foreclosed]]: a [[hole]] is left in the [[symbolic]] [[chain]]. In [[psychosis]] "the unconscious is present but not functioning." The [[psychotic]] [[structure]] results from a malfunction of the [[Oedipus complex]], a [[lack]] in the [[paternal function]]: the [[paternal function]] is reduced to the [[image]] of the [[father]] (the [[symbolic]] reduced to the [[imaginary]]).
  
Two conditions are required for psychosis to emerge: the subject has a psychotic structure (inheritance) and the Name-of-the-Father is called into symbolic opposition to the subject. When both conditions are fulfilled, psychosis is actualized; the latent psychosis becomes manifest in hallucinations and/or delusions. For Lacan psychosis includes paranoia (Papin sisters), so he bases his arguments on the Schreber case (as related by Freud). He argues that Schreber's psychosis was activated by both his failure to produce a child and his election to an important position in the judiciary. These experiences confronted him with the question of paternity in the real - called the Name-of-the-Father into symbolic opposition with the subject. The Name-of the Father is the fundamental signifier which permits signification to proceed normally. It both confers identity on the subject (naming and positioning it within the symbolic order) and signifies the Oedipical prohibition. When forclosed, it is not included in the symbolic order.<br>
+
== Symbolic Order ==
Lacan rejects the approach of limiting the analysis of psychosis to the imaginary: "nothing is to be expected from the way psychosis is explored at the level of the imaginary, since the imaginary mechanism is what gives psychotic alienation its form, but not its dynamics." Only by focusing on the symbolic are we able to point to the fundamental determining element of psychosis: the hole in the symbolic order caused by foreclosure and the consequent imprisonment of the psychotic subject in the imaginary. "The importance given to language phenomena in psychosis is for us the most fruitful lesson of all."<br>
+
Two conditions are required for [[psychosis]] to emerge:  
The Saussurian opposition between signifier and signified leads to the radical separation of the two chains, until they are tied through anchoring points, <i>points de capiton</i>. These are points at which "signifier and signified are knotted together." Despite the continual slippage of the signified under the signifier, there are nevertheless in the neurotic subject certain points of attachment between signifier and signified where the slippage is temporarily halted. A certain number of these points "are necessary for a person to be called normal" and "when they are not established or when they give way" the result is psychosis. In the psychotic experience "the signifier and the signified present themselves in a completely divided form." Thus the language phenomena most notable in psychosis are disorders of language: the presence of such disorders is a necessary condition for its diagnosis: holophrases and the extensive use of neologisms (new words or already existing ones which the psychotic redefines). These language disorders are due to the psychotic's lack of a sufficient number of anchoring points: the psychotic experience is characterized by a constant slippage of the signifier under the signified, which is a disaster for signification. Later, Lacan will posit that there is a continual "cascade of reshapings of the signifier from which the increasing disaster of the imaginary proceeds, until the level is reached at which signifier and signified are stabilized in the delusional metaphor." Thus "the nucleus of psychosis has to be linked to a rapport between the subject and the signifier in its most formal dimension, in its dimension as pure signifier. If the neurotic inhabits language, the psychotic is inhabited, possessed by language.</font></p><p>
+
# the [[subject]] has a [[psychotic]] [[structure]] (inheritance) and  
<font face="BOOKMAN" size="3">"On a question preliminary to any possible treatment of psychosis" (<i>Écrits: A Selection</i>) is a text written in 1958 and contemporary with <i>Les formations de l'inconscient</i>; it is a synthesis of <i>Les psychoses</i> and focuses mainly on the term foreclosure, <i>forclusion</i>, German <i>Verwerfung</i>.<br>
+
# the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is called into [[symbolic]] opposition to the [[subject]].  
  
In the Schema L "...the condition of the subject S (neurosis or psychosis) is dependent on what is being unfolded in the Other O. What is being unfolded is articulated like a discourse (the unconscious is the discourse of the Other)."
+
When both conditions are fulfilled, [[psychosis]] is actualized; the latent [[psychosis]] becomes manifest in [[hallucinations]] and/or [[delusions]].  For [[Lacan]] [[psychosis]] includes [[paranoia]] (Papin sisters), so he bases his arguments on the [[Schreber case]] (as related by [[Freud]]).  He argues that [[Schreber]]'s [[psychosis]] was activated by both his failure to produce a [[child]] and his election to an important position in the judiciary.  These experiences confronted him with the question of paternity in the [[real]]- called the [[Name-of-the-Father]] into [[symbolic]] opposition with the [[subject]].  The [[Name of the Father]] is the [[fundamental signifier]] which permits [[signification]] to proceed normally.  It both confers [[identity]] on the [[subject]] (naming and positioning it within the [[symbolic]] [[order]]) and signifies the Oedipical [[prohibition]].  When [[foreclosed]], it is not included in the [[symbolic]] [[order]].  [[Lacan]] rejects the approach of limiting the [[analysis]] of [[psychosis]] to the [[imaginary]]: "nothing is to be expected from the way psychosis is explored at the level of the imaginary, since the imaginary mechanism is what gives psychotic alienation its form, but not its dynamics."  Only by focusing on the [[symbolic]] are we able to point to the fundamental determining element of [[psychosis]]: the [[hole]] in the [[symbolic]] [[order]] caused by [[foreclosure]] and the consequent imprisonment of the [[psychotic]] [[subject]] in the [[imaginary]].  "The importance given to language phenomena in psychosis is for us the most fruitful lesson of all."
 +
 
 +
== Point de Caption ==
 +
The [[Saussurian]] opposition between [[signifier]] and [[signified]] leads to the radical separation of the two [[chain]]s, until they are tied through anchoring points, ''[[points de caption]]''.  These are points at which "signifier and signified are knotted together."  Despite the continual [[slip]]page of the [[signified]] under the [[signifier]], there are nevertheless in the [[neurotic]] [[subject]] certain points of attachment between [[signifier]] and [[signified]] where the [[slip]]page is temporarily halted.  A certain number of these points "are necessary for a person to be called normal" and "when they are not established or when they give way" the result is [[psychosis]].  In the psychotic experience "the signifier and the signified present themselves in a completely divided form."
 +
 
 +
== Language ==
 +
Thus the phenomena most notable in [[psychosis]] are disorders of [[language]]: the presence of such disorders is a necessary condition for its diagnosis: holophrases and the extensive use of neologisms (new words or already existing ones which the [[psychotic]] redefines).  These language disorders are due to the [[psychotic]]'s [[lack]] of a sufficient number of anchoring points: the psychotic experience is characterized by a constant [[slip]]page of the [[signifier]] under the [[signified]], which is a disaster for [[signification]].  Later, [[Lacan]] will posit that there is a continual "cascade of reshapings of the signifier from which the increasing disaster of the imaginary proceeds, until the level is reached at which signifier and signified are stabilized in the delusional metaphor."  Thus "the nucleus of psychosis has to be linked to a rapport between the subject and the signifier in its most formal dimension, in its dimension as pure signifier. If the neurotic inhabits language, the psychotic is inhabited, possessed by language."  "On a question preliminary to any possible treatment of psychosis" (‘’Écrits: A Selection’’) is a text written in 1958 and contemporary with ‘’Les formations de l'inconscient’’; it is a synthesis of ‘’Les psychoses’’ and focuses mainly on the term [[foreclosure]], ‘’forclusion’’, German ‘’Verwerfung’’.  In the [[Schema L]] "...the condition of the subject S (neurosis or psychosis) is dependent on what is being unfolded in the Other O. What is being unfolded is articulated like a discourse ([[the unconscious is the discourse of the Other]])."
  
 
[[Image:lacansem1a.gif|center]]
 
[[Image:lacansem1a.gif|center]]
  
In the Schema R: "...I as the ego-ideal, M as the signifier of the primordial object, and F as the position in O of the Name-of-the-Father. One can see how the homological fastening of the signification of S under the signifier of the phallus may affect the support of the field of reality delimited by the quadrangle MieI. The two other summits, e and i, represent the two imaginary terms of the narcissistic rapport, the ego and the specular image."
+
In the Schema R: "...I as the ego-ideal, M as the signifier of the primordial object, and F as the position in O of the Name-of-the-Father. One can see how the homological fastening of the signification of S under the signifier of the phallus may affect the support of the field of reality delimited by the quadrangle MieI. The two other summits, e and i, represent the two imaginary terms of the narcissistic rapport, the ego and the specular image."
  
 
[[Image:lacansem1a2.gif|center]]
 
[[Image:lacansem1a2.gif|center]]
  
This schema articulates the imaginary triad with the symbolic triad, both of which cut the quadrangle of reality. The term 'reality' is ambiguous in that it designates both our rapport to the world and our rapport to the Real as inaccessible. Schema R is elaborated in terms of a particular form of psychosis (Schreber). Later, <i>Kant avec Sade</i> (1962) will develop the perverse version as Lacan is concerned with creating the formal bases for his theory before addressing the problems of the treatment of psychosis.<br>
+
This schema articulates the [[imaginary]] triad with the [[symbolic]] triad, both of which cut the quadrangle of [[reality]]. The term '[[reality]]' is ambiguous in that it designates both our rapport to the world and our rapport to the [[Real]] as inaccessible. [[Schema R]] is elaborated in terms of a particular form of [[psychosis]] ([[Schreber]]). Later, ‘’[[Kant avec Sade]]’’ (1962) will develop the [[perverse]] version as [[Lacan]] is concerned with creating the formal bases for his theory before addressing the problems of the [[treatment]] of [[psychosis]]. The preliminary question seems to be the one of the [[Other]], whose presence commands everything else. It is the place from which the [[subject]] is confronted with the question of its [[existence]] ([[sexuation]] and [[death]]). What is the [[Other]]? Is it the [[unconscious]] where "it speaks?" Is it the place of [[memory]] that conditions the indestructibility of certain [[desire]]s? Is it the place where the [[signifier]] of [[signifier]]s is the [[phallus]]? Is it the place [[symbolize]]d by the [[Name-of-the-Father]] since the [[Oedipus complex]] is consubstantial with the [[unconscious]]? When the [[paternal metaphor]] does not allow the [[subject]] to evoke the [[signification]] of the [[phallus]], when the response to the call of the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is a [[lack]] of the [[signifier]] itself, then it is a case of [[psychosis]]. "This applies to the metaphor of the Name-of-the-Father, that is, the metaphor that puts this Name in the place that was first symbolized by the operation of the mother's absence." It designates the [[metaphor]]ical, [[substitutive]], character of the [[Oedipus complex]].
The preliminary question seems to be the one of the Other, whose presence commands everything else. It is the place from which the subject is confronted with the question of its existence (sexuation and death). What is the Other? Is it the unconscious where "it speaks?" Is it the place of memory that conditions the indestructibility of certain desires? Is it the place where the signifier of signifiers is the phallus? Is it the place symbolized by the Name-of-the-Father since "the Oedipus complex is consubstantial with the unconscious? When the paternal metaphor does not allow the subject to evoke the signification of the phallus, when the response to the call of the Name-of-the-Father is a lack of the signifier itself, then it is a case of psychosis.<br>
 
"This applies to the metaphor of the Name-of-the-Father, that is, the metaphor that puts this Name in the place that was first symbolized by the operation of the mother's absence." It designates the metaphorical, substitutive, character of the Oedipus complex.<br><br>
 
  
 
[[Image:lacansem1a3.gif|center]]
 
[[Image:lacansem1a3.gif|center]]
Line 37: Line 45:
 
[[Image:lacansem1a4.gif|center]]
 
[[Image:lacansem1a4.gif|center]]
  
It is the fundamental metaphor on which all signification depends: thus all signification is phallic. If the Name-of-the-Father is foreclosed (psychosis), there can be no paternal metaphor and no phallic signification.</font>
+
It is the fundamental [[metaphor]] on which all [[signification]] depends: thus all [[signification]] is [[phallus|phallic]]. If the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is [[foreclosed]] ([[psychosis]]), there can be no [[paternal metaphor]] and no [[phallic]] [[signification]].
  
  
 +
{| style="width:100%; border:1px solid #aaa;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;"
 +
|width="100%"| [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan, Jacques]].  ''Le Séminaire. Livre III. Les psychoses, 1955-56''. Ed. [[Jacques-Alain Miller]]. Paris: Seuil, 1981 [''The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56''. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993].
 +
|}
 +
<!--
 +
{| style="width:100%; border:1px solid #aaa;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;"
 +
|width="100%"| [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan, Jacques]].  [[Seminar I|Le séminaire, Livre II: Le moi dans la théorie de Freud et dans la technique de la psychanalyse]].  Ed. [[Jacques-Alain Miller]].  Paris: Seuil, 1977.  374 pages, Language: French, ISBN: 2020047276. <small><small>Buy it at [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/2020047276/nosubject-20/ Amazon.com], [http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/2020047276/nosub07-20/ Amazon.ca], [http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/2020047276/nosub-21/ Amazon.de], [http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/2020047276/nosubjencyofl-21/ Amazon.co.uk] or [http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2020047276/nosub04-21/ Amazon.fr].</small></small>
 +
|}
 +
-->
 +
|-
 +
|}
  
 
+
|style="width:100%;border-left:0px solid #cccccc;background-color:#ffffff;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| class="wikitable" width="100%" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" style="line-height:2.0em; padding-left:30px; background:#ffffff; text-align:center;"
+
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:top;background-color:#ffffff"
 +
|-
 +
|style="color:#000;line-height:2em;width:100%;";|
 +
{| class="wikitable" width="200px" cellpadding="0" border="0" cellspacing="0" align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" style="line-height:2.0em; padding-left:0px; background:#ffffff; text-align:center;"
 +
|-
 +
| align="center"| [[Image:Sem.III.jpg|200px|center]]
 
|-
 
|-
| bgcolor="#ffffff" width="225px" style="padding-left:10px" | [[{{Y}}|Date]]
+
|}
| bgcolor="#ffffff" width="75px" style="padding-left:10px" | [[{{Y}}|PDF]]
+
{| class="wikitable" width="200px" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" style="line-height:2.0em; padding-left:60px; background:#ffffff; text-align:center;"
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="4" style="text-align:center" | Introduction a la question des psychoses
+
| bgcolor="#ffffff" width="150px" style="padding-left:10px" | [[{{Y}}|Date]]
 +
| bgcolor="#ffffff" width="50px" style="padding-left:10px" | [[{{Y}}|PDF]]
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|16 novembre 1955]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|16 novembre 1955]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.16.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.16.pdf link]
| Introduction à la question des psychoses
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|23 novembre 1955]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|23 novembre 1955]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.23.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.23.pdf link]
| La signification du délire
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|30 novembre 1955]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|30 novembre 1955]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.30.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.30.pdf link]
| L'Autre et la psychose
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|7 décembre 1955]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|7 décembre 1955]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.12.07.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.12.07.pdf link]
| "je viens de chez le charcutier"
 
|-
 
| colspan="4" style="text-align:center" | Introduction a la question des psychoses
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|14 décembre 1955]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|14 décembre 1955]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.12.14.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.12.14.pdf link]
| D'un dieu qui ne trompe pas et d'un qui trompe
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|21 décembre 1955]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|21 décembre 1955]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.12.21.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.12.21.pdf link]
| Appendice. Séance suivante: Le discours du pupitre
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|11 janvier 1956]]   
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|11 janvier 1956]]   
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.11.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.11.pdf link]
| Le phénomène psychotique et son mécanisme
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|18 janvier 1956]]
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|18 janvier 1956]]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.18.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.18.pdf link]
| La dissolution imaginaire
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|25 janvier 1956]]
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|25 janvier 1956]]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.25.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.25.pdf link]
| La phrase symbolique
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|1 février 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|1 février 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.02.01.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.02.01.pdf link]
| Du non-sens et de la structure de Dieu
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|8 février 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|8 février 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.02.08.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.02.08.pdf link]
| Du signifiant dans le réel et du miracle du hurlement
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|15 février 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|15 février 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.02.15.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.02.15.pdf link]
| Du rejet d'un signifiant primordial
 
|-
 
| colspan="4" style="text-align:center" | Du signifiant et du signifie
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|14 mars 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|14 mars 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.03.14.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.03.14.pdf link]
| La question hystérique
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|21 mars 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|21 mars 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.03.21.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.03.21.pdf link]
| La question hystérique (II): "Qu'est-ce qu'une femme?"
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|11 avril 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|11 avril 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.04.11.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.04.11.pdf link]
| Le signifiant comme tel, ne signifie rien
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|18 avril 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|18 avril 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.04.18.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.04.18.pdf link]
| Des signifiants primordiaux et du manque d'un
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|25 avril 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|25 avril 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.04.25.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.04.25.pdf link]
| Secrétaire de l'aliéné
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|2 mai 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|2 mai 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.05.02.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.05.02.pdf link]
| Métaphore et métonymie (I): "Sa gerbe n'était point avare, ni haineuse"
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|9 mai 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|9 mai 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.05.09.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.05.09.pdf link]
| Conférence: Freud dans le siècle
 
|-
 
| colspan="4" style="text-align:center" | Les entours du trou
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|31 mai 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|31 mai 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.05.31.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.05.31.pdf link]
| L'appel, l'allusion
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|6 juin 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|6 juin 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.06.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.06.pdf link]
| Le point de capiton
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|13 juin 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|13 juin 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.13.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.13.pdf link]
| "Tu es celui qui me suivras"
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|20 juin 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|20 juin 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.20.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.20.pdf link]
| La grand'route et le signifiant "être père"
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|27 juin 1956]]  
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|27 juin 1956]]  
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.27.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.27.pdf link]
| "Tu es"
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|4 juillet 1956]]
 
| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" |  [[{{Y}}|4 juillet 1956]]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.07.04.pdf link]
 
| [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.07.04.pdf link]
| Le phallus et le météore
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
 
+
|-
 
+
|}<!-- Start of right-column -->
__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__
+
|}
 +
__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__

Revision as of 19:04, 22 June 2007

<slides12> name=Seminar hideAll=true fontsize=100% hideFooter=false showButtons=true hideMenu=false hideHeading=false

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Index

</slides12>

1955 - 1956 Les psychoses
The Psychoses
Psychosis

'Psychosis is one of three clinical structures. The other two are neurosis and perversion. Each structure is distinguished by a different operation: neurosis by the operation of repression, perversion by the operation of disavowal, and psychosis by the operation of foreclosure. By way of foreclosure of the signifier of the Name-of-the-Father it is possible to understand psychosis and distinguish it from neurosis.

Foreclosure

Foreclosure corresponds to Lacan's translation of Verwerfung (repudiaton). The Name-of-the-Father is not integrated in the symbolic order of the psychotic, it is foreclosed: a hole is left in the symbolic chain. In psychosis "the unconscious is present but not functioning." The psychotic structure results from a malfunction of the Oedipus complex, a lack in the paternal function: the paternal function is reduced to the image of the father (the symbolic reduced to the imaginary).

Symbolic Order

Two conditions are required for psychosis to emerge:

  1. the subject has a psychotic structure (inheritance) and
  2. the Name-of-the-Father is called into symbolic opposition to the subject.

When both conditions are fulfilled, psychosis is actualized; the latent psychosis becomes manifest in hallucinations and/or delusions. For Lacan psychosis includes paranoia (Papin sisters), so he bases his arguments on the Schreber case (as related by Freud). He argues that Schreber's psychosis was activated by both his failure to produce a child and his election to an important position in the judiciary. These experiences confronted him with the question of paternity in the real- called the Name-of-the-Father into symbolic opposition with the subject. The Name of the Father is the fundamental signifier which permits signification to proceed normally. It both confers identity on the subject (naming and positioning it within the symbolic order) and signifies the Oedipical prohibition. When foreclosed, it is not included in the symbolic order. Lacan rejects the approach of limiting the analysis of psychosis to the imaginary: "nothing is to be expected from the way psychosis is explored at the level of the imaginary, since the imaginary mechanism is what gives psychotic alienation its form, but not its dynamics." Only by focusing on the symbolic are we able to point to the fundamental determining element of psychosis: the hole in the symbolic order caused by foreclosure and the consequent imprisonment of the psychotic subject in the imaginary. "The importance given to language phenomena in psychosis is for us the most fruitful lesson of all."

Point de Caption

The Saussurian opposition between signifier and signified leads to the radical separation of the two chains, until they are tied through anchoring points, points de caption. These are points at which "signifier and signified are knotted together." Despite the continual slippage of the signified under the signifier, there are nevertheless in the neurotic subject certain points of attachment between signifier and signified where the slippage is temporarily halted. A certain number of these points "are necessary for a person to be called normal" and "when they are not established or when they give way" the result is psychosis. In the psychotic experience "the signifier and the signified present themselves in a completely divided form."

Language

Thus the phenomena most notable in psychosis are disorders of language: the presence of such disorders is a necessary condition for its diagnosis: holophrases and the extensive use of neologisms (new words or already existing ones which the psychotic redefines). These language disorders are due to the psychotic's lack of a sufficient number of anchoring points: the psychotic experience is characterized by a constant slippage of the signifier under the signified, which is a disaster for signification. Later, Lacan will posit that there is a continual "cascade of reshapings of the signifier from which the increasing disaster of the imaginary proceeds, until the level is reached at which signifier and signified are stabilized in the delusional metaphor." Thus "the nucleus of psychosis has to be linked to a rapport between the subject and the signifier in its most formal dimension, in its dimension as pure signifier. If the neurotic inhabits language, the psychotic is inhabited, possessed by language." "On a question preliminary to any possible treatment of psychosis" (‘’Écrits: A Selection’’) is a text written in 1958 and contemporary with ‘’Les formations de l'inconscient’’; it is a synthesis of ‘’Les psychoses’’ and focuses mainly on the term foreclosure, ‘’forclusion’’, German ‘’Verwerfung’’. In the Schema L "...the condition of the subject S (neurosis or psychosis) is dependent on what is being unfolded in the Other O. What is being unfolded is articulated like a discourse (the unconscious is the discourse of the Other)."

Lacansem1a.gif

In the Schema R: "...I as the ego-ideal, M as the signifier of the primordial object, and F as the position in O of the Name-of-the-Father. One can see how the homological fastening of the signification of S under the signifier of the phallus may affect the support of the field of reality delimited by the quadrangle MieI. The two other summits, e and i, represent the two imaginary terms of the narcissistic rapport, the ego and the specular image."

Lacansem1a2.gif

This schema articulates the imaginary triad with the symbolic triad, both of which cut the quadrangle of reality. The term 'reality' is ambiguous in that it designates both our rapport to the world and our rapport to the Real as inaccessible. Schema R is elaborated in terms of a particular form of psychosis (Schreber). Later, ‘’Kant avec Sade’’ (1962) will develop the perverse version as Lacan is concerned with creating the formal bases for his theory before addressing the problems of the treatment of psychosis. The preliminary question seems to be the one of the Other, whose presence commands everything else. It is the place from which the subject is confronted with the question of its existence (sexuation and death). What is the Other? Is it the unconscious where "it speaks?" Is it the place of memory that conditions the indestructibility of certain desires? Is it the place where the signifier of signifiers is the phallus? Is it the place symbolized by the Name-of-the-Father since the Oedipus complex is consubstantial with the unconscious? When the paternal metaphor does not allow the subject to evoke the signification of the phallus, when the response to the call of the Name-of-the-Father is a lack of the signifier itself, then it is a case of psychosis. "This applies to the metaphor of the Name-of-the-Father, that is, the metaphor that puts this Name in the place that was first symbolized by the operation of the mother's absence." It designates the metaphorical, substitutive, character of the Oedipus complex.

Lacansem1a3.gif
Lacansem1a4.gif

It is the fundamental metaphor on which all signification depends: thus all signification is phallic. If the Name-of-the-Father is foreclosed (psychosis), there can be no paternal metaphor and no phallic signification.


Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre III. Les psychoses, 1955-56. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1981 [The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993].
Sem.III.jpg
Date PDF
16 novembre 1955 link
23 novembre 1955 link
30 novembre 1955 link
7 décembre 1955 link
14 décembre 1955 link
21 décembre 1955 link
11 janvier 1956 link
18 janvier 1956 link
25 janvier 1956 link
1 février 1956 link
8 février 1956 link
15 février 1956 link
14 mars 1956 link
21 mars 1956 link
11 avril 1956 link
18 avril 1956 link
25 avril 1956 link
2 mai 1956 link
9 mai 1956 link
31 mai 1956 link
6 juin 1956 link
13 juin 1956 link
20 juin 1956 link
27 juin 1956 link
4 juillet 1956 link