Difference between revisions of "Seminar VIII"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
|}
 
|}
  
In <i>[[La relation d'objet]]</i> [[Lacan]] provided a way of understanding the paradoxical function of [[transference]] in the [[analytic]]al [[cure]].  In its [[symbolic]] aspect ([[repetition]]) it helps the [[cure]] progress by revealing the [[signifier]]s of the [[subject]]'s history.  He argues that in its [[imaginary]] aspect ([[love]] and [[hate]]) it acts as a [[resistance]].  He uses [[Plato]]'s <i>[[The Symposium]]</i> to illustrate the rapport between analysand and analyst: Alcibiades compares Socrates to a box enclosing a precious [[object]], <i>[[agalma]]</i>. Just as Alcibiades attributes a hidden treasure to Socrates, so too the [[patient]] sees his [[object]] of [[desire]] in the [[analyst]].  [[Lacan]] articulates the <i>[[objet a]]</i> with <i>[[agalma]]</i>, the [[object of desire]] we seek in the [[other]].
+
In <i>[[La relation d'objet]]</i> [[Lacan]] provided a way of [[understanding]] the paradoxical function of [[transference]] in the [[analytic]]al [[cure]].  In its [[symbolic]] aspect ([[repetition]]) it helps the [[cure]] [[progress]] by revealing the [[signifier]]s of the [[subject]]'s [[history]].  He argues that in its [[imaginary]] aspect ([[love]] and [[hate]]) it [[acts]] as a [[resistance]].  He uses [[Plato]]'s <i>[[The Symposium]]</i> to illustrate the rapport between analysand and analyst: [[Alcibiades]] compares [[Socrates]] to a box enclosing a precious [[object]], <i>[[agalma]]</i>. Just as Alcibiades attributes a hidden treasure to Socrates, so too the [[patient]] sees his [[object]] of [[desire]] in the [[analyst]].  [[Lacan]] articulates the <i>[[objet a]]</i> with <i>[[agalma]]</i>, the [[object of desire]] we seek in the [[other]].
  
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]].
+
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."
+
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]].
+
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.
+
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.
  
 
<!--
 
<!--
 
<b>Le séminaire, Livre VIII: Le transfert (dans sa disparité subjective).</b><br>
 
<b>Le séminaire, Livre VIII: Le transfert (dans sa disparité subjective).</b><br>
French: (texte établi par Jacques-Alain Miller), Paris: Seuil, 1991.<br>
+
[[French]]: (texte établi par Jacques-[[Alain]] [[Miller]]), [[Paris]]: Seuil, 1991.<br>
English: unpublished
+
[[English]]: unpublished
  
 
{| style="width:100%; border:1px solid #aaa;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;"
 
{| style="width:100%; border:1px solid #aaa;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;"
Line 143: Line 143:
  
 
|-
 
|-
|}<!-- Start of right-column -->
+
|}<!-- Start of [[right]]-column -->
 
|}
 
|}
 
__NOTOC__  __NOEDITSECTION__
 
__NOTOC__  __NOEDITSECTION__
  
 
[[Category:Seminars]] [[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
 
[[Category:Seminars]] [[Category:Jacques Lacan]]

Revision as of 22:53, 20 May 2019

Jacques Lacan's Seminars : 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

1960 - 1961 Le transfert (dans sa disparité subjective)
Transference

In La relation d'objet Lacan provided a way of understanding the paradoxical function of transference in the analytical cure. In its symbolic aspect (repetition) it helps the cure progress by revealing the signifiers of the subject's history. He argues that in its imaginary aspect (love and hate) it acts as a resistance. He uses Plato's The Symposium to illustrate the rapport between analysand and analyst: Alcibiades compares Socrates to a box enclosing a precious object, agalma. Just as Alcibiades attributes a hidden treasure to Socrates, so too the patient sees his object of desire in the analyst. Lacan articulates the objet a with agalma, the object of desire we seek in the other.

Before, the emphasis was placed on repetition, now it is placed on transference love, amour de transfert: 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" (Écrits: A Selection) 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 The Symposium 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 agalma - the phallus as desirable. But Socrates refuses the position of loved object to assert himself as desiring. For Lacan desire never occurs between two subjects 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 lacks. The phallus, from being objet a, 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 The Symposium, 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 hysterical 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" - entre-deux-morts. 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.

Sem.VIII.jpg
Date PDF
06 novembre 1957 link
13 novembre 1957 link
20 novembre 1957 link
27 novembre 1957 link
04 décembre 1957 link
11 décembre 1957 link
18 décembre 1957 link
08 janvier 1958 link
15 janvier 1958 link
22 janvier 1958 link
29 janvier 1958 link
05 février 1958 link
12 février 1958 link
05 mars 1958 link
12 mars 1958 link
19 mars 1958 link
26 mars 1958 link
09 avril 1958 link
16 avril 1958 link
23 avril 1958 link
30 avril 1958 link
07 mai 1958 link
14 mai 1958 link
21 mai 1958 link
04 juin 1958 link
11 juin 1958 link
18 juin 1958 link
25 juin 1958 link
02 juillet 1958 link