|}
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]].
==Test MultimediaPlayer Extension==Before, the emphasis was placed on repetition, now it is placed on [[transference]] [[love]], <div style=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 "max-width: 750pxThe direction of the [[treatment]] and the principles of its [[power]]">(<multimediacontainer /i>[[Écrits: A Selection]]</divi>) [[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]].
* {{#multimediaitemIn <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]]:SoundCloudPlaylist|39079464|SoundCloud test}}I am not here for his [[Good]], but for him to love me, and for me to disappoint him."
==Test IframePage Extension=={{SpecialAlcibiades 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:IframePage|SoundCloud|path=39079464such 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]]</embed}}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.
In <i>[[La relation d'objet]]<==English translation==* Download: https://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]]mega. He uses [[Plato]]'s <i>[[The Symposium]]<nz/i> to illustrate the rapport between analysand and analyst#!zbJiHQxZ!_LLpZHQW96_YAWvZptA49sj7xUFFP5MV4oJY4FPT5hc* Download : http: [[Alcibiades]] compares [[Socrates]] to a box enclosing a precious [[object]], <i>[[agalma]]</i>/www. Just as Alcibiades attributes a hidden treasure to Socrates, so too the [[patient]] sees his [[object]] of [[desire]] in the [[analyst]]lacaninireland. [[Lacan]] articulates the <i>[[objet a]]<com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/i> with THE-SEMINAR-OF-JACQUES-LACAN-VIII-Draft-21.pdf<ipdf>[[agalma]]File:THE-SEMINAR-OF-JACQUES-LACAN-VIII.pdf</ipdf>, 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]].
In <i>The [[Symposium]]</i> the [An English [analyst]]'s position is [[identifiedtranslation]] with Socrates', while Alcibiades occupies the position of the [[analysandSeminar]]VIII, who after Socrates will discover himself [[desiring]]. "To isolate oneself with [[another]] so as to teach him what he is [[lacking]] andmade from unpublished French transcripts, was made by the a [[naturereading]] of group associated with [[transference]], he will learn what he is lacking insofar as he [[loves]]http: I am not here for his [[Good//www.lacaninireland.com ''Jacques Lacan in Ireland'']], but for him to love me, and for me to disappoint himarranged in a presentable form by Tony Hughes.<pdf width="800px"height="1000px">http://www.lacaninireland.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/THE-SEMINAR-OF-JACQUES-LACAN-VIII-Draft-21.pdf</pdf>
Alcibiades desires because he presumes Socrates is in possession of the <i>[[agalma]]<==English Audio =={{#widget:Iframe|url=https://i> - the [[phallus]] as desirablew. But Socrates refuses the position of [[love]]d [[object]] to assert himself as desiringsoundcloud. 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 uscom/player/?url=https%3A//api." 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]]soundcloud. There is no rapport between what the one possesses and what the other [[lack]]s. The [[phallus]], from being <i>[[objet a]]<com/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<playlists/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]].39079464&color=%23ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true|width=100%|height=450|border=0Having 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.}}
<!--
