Link to the January newsletter posted. Feb 2nd, Seed Thought of the Week:
They wanted to imitate Lacan in his relationship to Freud. That is not at all the slogan under which I imagined I was doing this course. This return to Freud denounced the practice of formation which only went along with affirming itself in the societies attached to the International: I would say that what concerns his practice as a mathematician was to read the authors where a certain symbol emerged, some axiom or some theorem.
This is the doctrine that is always valid for the orthodox ones on our side, the side which is for him if one will admit some genius for the first students and for Freud himself, it is no longer the hour for that one is now trying to get the hang of what concerns psychoanalysis.
At the same time, the field is now marked out and one can visit its former works, perhaps as some kind of ruins, ancient ruins. This means that Lacan has seen this occasion, this movement, begin and that he denounces those reading Fenichel rather than Freud.
This temptation has not stopped growing in the very moment, moreover, when the only concepts admitted, finally, remained Freudian, came from Freud. This would truly be an abuse on our part, and a mimicry of imagining ourselves as having taken place in a return to Lacan in a conjuncture which has nothing comparable in our area.
I mean the place where when one opens the door, one will find enough to sustain some exposes, some lectures, or seminars; one opens and one serves oneself with what one finds, and then one serves it back to the public, which wishes, indeed, to follow it.
What concerns us is no longer that Lacan would have always said the same thing. That is based on the illusion that I have denounced regarding Lacan, that he knew it already…that he already knew where he was going to end up.
Basically, his teaching is completely orientable.
Subject Supposed to Know, according to Lacan and, at the bottom, in a simple remark, he contradicts himself—which is evident for an attentive reader—the simple remark in which he contradicts himself could distance us already from this illusion that I am exposing. It is also constantly worked on by a failure.
It is what brings it to this indefinite renewal—weekly, for a long time—which from a certain aspect can resemble a flight forward. I mean, of course, he solves this difficulty, but in making a solution he also takes it up to another level; in this way he recognizes this difficulty as always better, and also revives what Lacan himself called the advance of his teaching.
What he revives in this way is the same thing as psychoanalysis itself. That has given the idea to Lacanians that the point of view of Dr. Lacan on psychoanalysis was a unitary point of view, unitary and ruled by this axiom.
They concluded from it that everything that surged forth in the field of analytic experience must be structured like a language. Starting from there, what were the first questions Lacan asked in his first seminars? The first question, let us say, has been what doctrine of the treatment to deduce from the unconscious structured like a language?
And, especially, what theory of the transference would one deduce from the unconscious structured like a language? It is the object of his Seminar I on the technical writings of Freud, which is published now. What seemed, rather, to be the very prerogative of the Kleinians, was preserving the death drive.
You know that Jones himself, who wished to be especially faithful to the letter of Freud, lowered his arms before this death drive which appeared completely contradictory to their themes.
Lacan did his best, even beyond that, to realize, to reintroduce the death drive into the concepts of psychoanalysis, but he reintroduces the death drive strictly go see the texts starting with the signifying chain. Basically, this aspect has dominated the reading of Lacan and one must say that he has put his own originality there, put himself in this perspective, so that this perspective wins.
The result is that I am still uncertain about the part I played, since that could basically be a coincidence. It is necessary to give priority to this place. It is especially designated to valorize what Lacan did not hesitate to call the autonomy of the symbolic.
He even begins by celebrating the profundity with which the grasp of the symbolic takes over the human being. That says, precisely, that nothing outside the imaginary resists the power of the symbol.
It is against the post-Freudians who wanted to remove that from the Freudian concept. It is not just an addition. It is, on the contrary, an essential element; sometimes Freud perceives that the analytic experience is governed in some way—beyond life.
But what is the beyond life of which it is a question? The beyond life is strictly the signifying chain. And, thus, one has retained the fort-da as the illustration itself of the Freudian text, of this signifying text which responds to what one can call an axiom: It is a small short cut that I am giving there, but which enables us to see in what way Lacan found a structure also which exceeds precisely what one obtains starting with the signifier.
Starting with the signifier, one finds a minimum of 2, and in this case a signifier all alone is a paradox which does not mean that it cannot be thought; moreover, one is forced into the analytic experience with the position of the phallus as quite precisely a signifier without a pair.
But, finally, it takes on its value of paradox exactly because it is thought of as starting with the signifier of which the minimum is 2.
Here, the fort-da has the same value, if you wish, of the paradigm that it has at the beginning for Lacan of the Borromean knot.Beowulf survives in a single manuscript dated on palaeographical grounds to the late 10th or early 11th century.
The manuscript measures × mm. Provenance. The poem is known only from a single manuscript, which is estimated to date from close to AD , in which it appears with other works. Dive deep into Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken with extended analysis, commentary, and discussion The Road Not Taken Analysis and the other is that the poem is entitled “The Road Not.
"The Flood," by Robert Frost; and the Mississippi Flood The Flood by Robert Lee Frost Blood has been harder to dam back than water. Update: This poem was published in , It is a commentary on the human potential for violence.
Our display and love for it. Our thurst cannot be quenched of blood even if it comes in floods. After The Flood by Arthur benjaminpohle.com soon as the idea of the Deluge had subsided A hare stopped in the clover and swaying flowerbells and said a prayer to the rainbow through the.
Page/5(2). Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews. After the Flood. by Dora Wilcox From book: The Bulletin Cast by the furious flood like a broken straw on the bank; Save this poem to your personal selection where you can download them in a PDF or email them to a friend.