Difference between revisions of "Talk:Seminar III"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
| − | + | <!-- | |
=====Psychosis===== | =====Psychosis===== | ||
| − | '''[[Psychosis]]'' is one of three '''[[structure|clinical structures]]'''. | + | '''[[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]]. |
| − | |||
| − | 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===== | ||
| − | '''[[Foreclosure]]''' corresponds to [[Lacan]]'s translation of ''[[Verwerfung]]'' ([[repudiaton]]). | + | '''[[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]]). |
| − | |||
| − | 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 == | == Symbolic Order == | ||
Two conditions are required for [[psychosis]] to emerge: | Two conditions are required for [[psychosis]] to emerge: | ||
| − | |||
# the [[subject]] has a [[psychotic]] [[structure]] (inheritance) and | # the [[subject]] has a [[psychotic]] [[structure]] (inheritance) and | ||
# the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is called into [[symbolic]] opposition to the [[subject]]. | # 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]]. | + | 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." |
| − | |||
| − | 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 == | == 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]]''. | + | 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." |
| − | |||
| − | 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 == | == 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). | + | 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]])." |
| − | |||
| − | 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]] | ||
| Line 114: | Line 64: | ||
[[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]]. | + | 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 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]]. | ||
[[Image:lacansem1a3.gif|center]] | [[Image:lacansem1a3.gif|center]] | ||
| Line 143: | Line 70: | ||
[[Image:lacansem1a4.gif|center]] | [[Image:lacansem1a4.gif|center]] | ||
| − | It is the fundamental [[metaphor]] on which all [[signification]] depends: thus all [[signification]] is [[phallus|phallic]]. | + | 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]]. |
| − | + | --> | |
| − | If the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is [[foreclosed]] ([[psychosis]]), there can be no [[paternal metaphor]] and no [[phallic]] [[signification]]. | ||
| − | |||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
* ''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]. | * ''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]. | ||
| Line 190: | Line 115: | ||
* [http://{{Archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.07.04.pdf 04 juillet 1956] | * [http://{{Archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.07.04.pdf 04 juillet 1956] | ||
{{Also}} | {{Also}} | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {| 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;" | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" width="225px" style="padding-left:10px" | [[{{Y}}|Date]] | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" width="75px" style="padding-left:10px" | [[{{Y}}|PDF]] | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | colspan="4" style="text-align:center" | Introduction a la question des psychoses | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|16 novembre 1955]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.16.pdf link] | ||
| + | | Introduction à la question des psychoses | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|23 novembre 1955]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.23.pdf link] | ||
| + | | La signification du délire | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|30 novembre 1955]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1955.11.30.pdf link] | ||
| + | | L'Autre et la psychose | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|7 décembre 1955]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.11.pdf link] | ||
| + | | Le phénomène psychotique et son mécanisme | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|18 janvier 1956]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.18.pdf link] | ||
| + | | La dissolution imaginaire | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|25 janvier 1956]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.01.25.pdf link] | ||
| + | | La phrase symbolique | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|1 février 1956]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.03.14.pdf link] | ||
| + | | La question hystérique | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|21 mars 1956]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.04.25.pdf link] | ||
| + | | Secrétaire de l'aliéné | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|2 mai 1956]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.05.31.pdf link] | ||
| + | | L'appel, l'allusion | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|6 juin 1956]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.06.pdf link] | ||
| + | | Le point de capiton | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|13 juin 1956]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.13.pdf link] | ||
| + | | "Tu es celui qui me suivras" | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|20 juin 1956]] | ||
| + | | [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]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.06.27.pdf link] | ||
| + | | "Tu es" | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | [[{{Y}}|4 juillet 1956]] | ||
| + | | [http://{{archive}}/seminaireIII/1956.07.04.pdf link] | ||
| + | | Le phallus et le météore | ||
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:04, 22 June 2007
1955-1956 (362 pp.)-SEMINAIRE III: LES PSYCHOSES (SEMINAR III: PSYCHOSES)-1981
ow is it possible to understand psychosis and distinguish it from neurosi;.z] ~y means of the foreclosure of a fundamental signifier, the Name-of-the- . Fath~\!his term, which Lacan had been looking for since 1954 (27) in order. to translate Freud's Venverfung (repudiation) and which will be used beyond. the Lacanian circles, appeared for the first time at the very end of this seminar ,. that reexamines the questions raised in 1932 J.:). By psychosis Lacan means, paranoia. So, what about paranoia? By paranoia Lacan means the case of _ Schreber, a case that is exemplary enough to offer the key to human be- • coming. Paradoxically, it is on texts that the theory is constructed here�Schreber's Memoires, Freud's interpretation, Ida Macalpine's-even if ex�amples borrowed from the cases that Lacan presented at Sainte-Anne recall clinical reality. The foreclosed signifier reappears in the Real under the for of hallucinated voices. The link with the case of the Wolfman (Freud), where 1 hallucination is visual-the hallucination of the cut finger referring to the penis-, is not established, except through the idea that the father is the ring holding together the mother, the child, and the phallus.
To return to the "pure Freudian position" is "to investigate more in depth the metaphysics of such a discovery" that is "entirely inscribed in man's re�lation to the symbolic." In psychosis, it is not a matter of the projection outside of a bodily "primitive inside," but of "a body of foreclosed signi�fiers." Thus, linguistics is very present here: from this point of view, many sessions in this seminar shed light on difficult writings such as La Lettre volee (31) or L'!nstance de la leltre (35). The Saussurian opposition between sig�nifier and signified leads to the radical separation of the two chains, until they are tied through anchoring points [points de capiton. a term borrowed from upholstery). Only one of these points is explained, the Father. With Jakobson and his article on aphasia, Les Aphasies. metaphor and metonymy reorganize mental pathology; the famous analysis of Boot endormi (Hugo) I allows Lacan to create the notion of paternal metaphor whose absence would d. In English in the original. 180 00881 ER mcan psychosis. Finally. Benvcniste's classification of pronouns (I/You/He) providcs thc opportunity for brilliant claborations on thc sentence, "You are thc one who will follow mc" ITu es celui qui me suivra(s)). a sentence that defincs thc founding word: that of sworn Faith situated in the Other. The Othcr, clcarly opposed to the imaginary other, seems to be "discourse itself." It is a beneficial place "where the I who speaks is constituted in relation with thc one who hcars" and, at the same time, an evil place since "the neurotic inhabits language; the psychotic is inhabited, possessed by the language" that persecutcs him. The whole destiny of man is decided during the Oedipus complex whose laws are the laws of language-however, everything is al�rcady decided in archaic times ("the fundamental signifier is a myth"). To explain psychosis by the absence of a primordial symbolization does not an�swer two questions, even with the help of the Schbna L. called the magical square. Why this absence and how to remedy to it? Many of the disciples' clinical discourses concerning the psychotic's mother (and more rarely the father) focus on this absence, a flaw in Lacan's elaboration. "It is not enough to want to be mad to become mad," indeed, but how does one become mad without maybe "wanting" to? The analysis of Schreber reveals something else: the question of procrea�tion, "in its cssential root," cscapes the symbolic web that includes neither creation ("being is born of another being") nor death. The absence of sym�bolization of the woman's sex organ as such (for "lack of material") and the absolute primacy of the phallus introduce a quasi-irreparable dissymmetry. This seminar, which goes back to the cas Dora (20) and presages the inter�vention on La Sexualite feminine (45), states that the feminine position is "problematic and, up to a certain point. cannot be assimilated." However. women are actually not the only ones concerned since the Real. which is so often said to be impossible in Lacan's works, is also in question here. [ This volume also includes the lecture given by Lacan, in Professor Delay's presence. for the centenary of Freud's birth: Freud dans Ie siecle (Freud in the century), where he explains what he meant by the return to Freud.
==
Back Cover
Taking us into and beyond the realm of Freudian psychoanalysis, Lacan examines the psychoses' inescapable connection to the symbolic process through which signifier is joined with signified.
Lacan deftly navigates the ontological levels of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real to explain psychosis as "foreclosure," or rejection of the primordial signifier.
Then, bridging the gap between the theoretical and the practical, Lacan discusses the implications for treatment.
In these lectures on the psychoses, Lacan's renowned theory of metaphor and metonymy, along with the concept of the "quilting point," appears for the first time.
Short Summary
Only the first half of the seminar is explicitly concerned with questions of psychosis and psychotic phenomenon.
The second half looks at hysteria, the relationship between the signifier and the signified and finally issues of metaphor and metonymy.
The seminar also contains early formulations of the Name-of-the-Father and the phallus.
Sometimes controversial, invariably fascinating, Lacan's psycholinguistic approach to analysis of the psychoses is seen here in virtually unmediated form.
Bibliography
- 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].
Library
| Download | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Date | |||
| Introduction a la question des psychoses | |||
| 16 novembre 1955 | link | Introduction à la question des psychoses | |
| 23 novembre 1955 | link | La signification du délire | |
| 30 novembre 1955 | link | L'Autre et la psychose | |
| 7 décembre 1955 | link | "je viens de chez le charcutier" | |
| Introduction a la question des psychoses | |||
| 14 décembre 1955 | link | D'un dieu qui ne trompe pas et d'un qui trompe | |
| 21 décembre 1955 | link | Appendice. Séance suivante: Le discours du pupitre | |
| 11 janvier 1956 | link | Le phénomène psychotique et son mécanisme | |
| 18 janvier 1956 | link | La dissolution imaginaire | |
| 25 janvier 1956 | link | La phrase symbolique | |
| 1 février 1956 | link | Du non-sens et de la structure de Dieu | |
| 8 février 1956 | link | Du signifiant dans le réel et du miracle du hurlement | |
| 15 février 1956 | link | Du rejet d'un signifiant primordial | |
| Du signifiant et du signifie | |||
| 14 mars 1956 | link | La question hystérique | |
| 21 mars 1956 | link | La question hystérique (II): "Qu'est-ce qu'une femme?" | |
| 11 avril 1956 | link | Le signifiant comme tel, ne signifie rien | |
| 18 avril 1956 | link | Des signifiants primordiaux et du manque d'un | |
| 25 avril 1956 | link | Secrétaire de l'aliéné | |
| 2 mai 1956 | link | Métaphore et métonymie (I): "Sa gerbe n'était point avare, ni haineuse" | |
| 9 mai 1956 | link | Conférence: Freud dans le siècle | |
| Les entours du trou | |||
| 31 mai 1956 | link | L'appel, l'allusion | |
| 6 juin 1956 | link | Le point de capiton | |
| 13 juin 1956 | link | "Tu es celui qui me suivras" | |
| 20 juin 1956 | link | La grand'route et le signifiant "être père" | |
| 27 juin 1956 | link | "Tu es" | |
| 4 juillet 1956 | link | Le phallus et le météore | |
