Difference between revisions of "Seminar VIII"
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ''[[Le transfert|Le transfert (dans sa disparité subjective)]]''<BR>[[Transference]] | | ''[[Le transfert|Le transfert (dans sa disparité subjective)]]''<BR>[[Transference]] | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | |||
− | + | In <i>[[La relation d'objet]]</i> [[Lacan]] provided a way of understanding the paradoxical function of [[transference]] in the [[analytic]]al c[[ure]]. 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]]. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | 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. | + | 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." | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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. | ||
<!-- | <!-- |
Revision as of 22:46, 21 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>
|