Extract from a lecture delivered at Tours in May 1998 for the study day "Spaces" of the Association of Clinical Research of the first sector (A) of psychiatry Indre. The association is led by Dr. Gerard particular Gailliard, Carol Jonas, Marie-josé Bouraine Alain Wahl, Catherine Marty.
To this day intervened as Jean-Jacques Martin (EPIC) of Chilperic Boiscuillé, architect and Serge Vallon. VST publish more excerpts from that day. For an account of the debates: Debates clinics, special issue areas, Association of Clinical Research, Department of Psychiatry, Centre de Tours-South psychotherapy, Avenue du General de Gaulle, 37550 Saint-Avertin.
Link Source: http://www.cemea.asso.fr/spip.php?article2944
Article extract Salaries and Social Life No. 65 Desire and transfer to the "speaking being" :
is a very old course, which goes back decades. It is related to a practice of everyday life with people of all kinds, including a majority of psychotics. So, a priori, a kind of decision is to think that in such people, as among all people - those that Lacan calls "speaking beings" - there is desire. Not the desire which has been discussed for several decades, what I call the desire to junk the new philosophers but the unconscious desire in the sense of Freud, an extraordinary re-articulated by Lacan. It is the desire of people even at the most so-called weak, even among those who have an IQ of 30, idiots, morons. There is desire, and that's what is in question is an ethical one might say. Or if there is desire, there is a dimension, however small it - it can make certain smile - an analytical, psychoanalytical, within the meaning of Freud. This does not mean that we will conduct courses - in any case, the typical treatments, there is not much - but ultimately, there is a dimension reflection which must take account of unconscious desire. And if we take account of unconscious desire, it calls into question the fundamental concept that was articulated by Lacan long ago, the concept of transfer: the transfer there. But simply to say, even at the word "information is transferred," we know what that means. The transfer, etymologically, this corresponds to what Freud called - but the same word - Übertragung, or the name that is on the bus to Athens, "Metaphors" is to say bearing and transported. However, information is transferred, and that from the beginning, even before Freud arrived at conceptualizing a very precise way the word "transfer". The transfer was related to movement, a sort of travel, even on the investment body, then it took other dimensions. Now there is movement: when we say transfer, they say move, they say unconscious desire. It is a paradox of wanting, not treated, but still making life a little less miserable for some people, irrespective of whether they are "speaking beings", that is to say that they are not animals. I will not speak ill of the animals, I love animals, four paws, cats, dogs ... but there is no word from them. When a cat talk to me, I would say that there may be transferred there, but otherwise there is none, it is quite another "dignity."
Transfer separated and constellations
So the introduction of daily life should reflect that. But why this prejudice in everyday life? Is this a bias I do not know what perversion housewife? When one "supports" someone (it is a term, "take charge", why not? Some friends say "When you have a function phoric", "bear"), when it supports a psychotic or schizophrenic, although seen with more precise techniques such as those of Gisela Pankow and many others, if you see once, twice, even three times a week, half an hour each time, I take into account: in a week seven days ago. Seven days less than half an hour, less than an hour, there is still some time! Yet precisely because of the quality of what kind of people, we realize that what I have called long ago the "dissociated transfer" is a hypothesis, it means that is the burst transfer can occur, not only the therapist who will see them once a week, but will be able to show all week, between sessions as they say. And indeed it is something quite banal, even outside the treatment of psychotics: we know that for someone who is analytical, everything does not happen in the session. Often the interpretation is precisely in the inter-meeting, at a street corner. Something may have been triggered by the meeting, but the interpretation is sometimes not even at the office of the analyst, she is perhaps the train, we'll make a meeting, you will find an extraordinary text ... But all this is taken in the analytical process, maintained almost on time. Also in the psychotic - and there is even worse! - Not everything will be said in the meeting, far from it. It's just trying to trigger something. To really follow a schizophrenic in an analytical process (which is still rare), it requires - by necessity "structural" - at least one person, one analyst, who is in special position, and can take what I I called - without going into detail - "the function -1" that is to say, be off the field, not practice, but outside the logical field of everyday life. This does not mean it should not be in daily life is another matter. And it requires far a dozen people, places, etc.. Because we realize that there are investments that Tosquelles called the "multi-referential," that is to say multi-investments, investments of more partial. We see that sometimes what happens is a huge role in some people. These are things we do not even know, unexpected, for example at the foot of a tree. I remember as a schizophrenic, he was a donkey in the meadow that mattered to him. He gave drink to the donkey, and the only thing that remade the world in this type. If we remove the ass by saying it's not very elegant, as an analyst, it is completely off base! What matters is the whole. We will not go into detail, but there is a whole environment that can work, social environment, micro-social, with a range of people of all kinds, so-called "constellations." What counts in life? It can be as well as a friend to the doctor, a cook, a gardener, a nurse. There he did not "status", it does not care, they are simply affinities. These people, whether they like it or not, become responsible, bearing partial investments they know themselves. But if we want to carry out a kind of metabolic treatment, we must recognize those people and work with them. And then you realize that there extraordinary changes in behavior, but not just behavior, the structure of the person who is supported by a group like that. I do do tell where this was said already, there are more than forty years, Racamier, when he referred to a clinic in Chestnut Lodge, with experiments on which he would return.
Emergence
So why do I remember that? It is to say that, ultimately, for there may be multi-investments, we need points "référentiabilité" multiple. And that does not require merely some space, this requires a possibility that people can not not access any particular item (not a game track!), but move, walk, explore, meet different people or areas. Conversely, at times I saw arriving at La Borde people into ambulances were tied up, bound them on stretchers, from institutions that I will not. Of course you can play the St. Vincent de Paul: "Come on, miraculously, I untie the strings, and it works!" ... It is true that it worked. Koechlin has done the same thing in a terrible hospital in Montreal, where there were rooms full of people tied up. That's good, but what do we actually once they Untie are? We put them up? Last year, there's a guy that has happened, it was twenty-four years he was in the hospital, he could no longer stand. And even now he lies on the ground, but everyone has got used, everyone who cares: it lies anywhere, and we continue to talk to him and he says nothing, it does nothing ... He has no neurological disorder but it can neither speak nor stand. That's interesting here this guy. After a year, everyone knows him, he has invested lots of things. I think of him because before yesterday he was with his brother and then - it is a bit stupid in those cases - they say: "How are you?" ... Finally, we do not know what to say! He was happy to be there with his brother, but he would not sit for once he was standing! In the end, with smiles, I am (as always) a sign of the cross, as if I was the baby Jesus, and there he goes over his pack of cigarettes, Gauloises, he pulls out a cigarette, he takes his cigarette, he resumed his cigarettes, he took me out another cigarette and offers it to me. Fortunately I am not for the Evin law! I therefore lighter and lit the cigarette. And there, a smile, but extraordinary! And that smile, it's worth it. Sometimes it takes years to get a smile, but then a few moments, there it was, there was a smile. It is infinitely more important to have a smile to have a kind of guy who recites to you the table of the Oedipus or who you talk to her grandmother. A smile, and behind that smile, what was on? Behind that smile, there was certainly what one might call an emergency. What is the purpose of psychoanalysis? Of course it is a mode that is expensive, but ultimately, this leads to what? Sometimes not much, it must be said. But when it ends, what is the purpose? Not the purpose with a purpose, with a string and a carrot, but the sense of finality to my friend Jean Gagnepain, who speaks of "téléotique. The téléotique is a direction vector. This does not mean that we will achieve the goal, but it's there. téléotique Now, it seems to me that when someone is embarrassed - or even embarrassed, if we do not know is often worse - it must lead to a rally of something, and emergence. Emergence of desire is perhaps too strong a word, but emergence. And here I quote Lacan's distinctions and especially Levinas: the distinction between saying and said. Going fast: if there were no words, there would not have said. Say, is a factory, it's something of the unconscious, it is not so far from what Lacan called, in a masterly manner, lalangue in one word. The saying is what is most important, perhaps, the possibility to gather, to delineate. In schizophrenia or severe psychosis, there is a kind of bursting say. And say it is not far from the desire unconscious. Even Levinas - him, he did not so much the concept of the unconscious, but it's still a genius on the other hand - in a wonderful book, Otherwise than Being or Beyond gasoline made the connection between word and desire, all taken in a space, "an-archical" is the very term Levinas. Now what is the purpose, meaning téléotique of any analytic process? From a broader analytical process, as with the schizophrenic who can no longer stand but that gives me the cigarette, which does not say a word and I do not even see regularly. He is seen by others but I must count for him, because to him I may be a pure spirit, pure symbolic, perhaps I am God, I do not know ... It is not cumbersome in any case. This he felt, that it does not bother with, that's why I had the right to a cigarette, perhaps. But then, what is at issue is the emergence of something. What? I think there's a concept that could serve us, but not in ten minutes we can say is once again a notion of Lacan. Lacan, in my opinion it is a tremendous wealth. I often say that Nothing is easier than Lacan, because you dig in, you can learn many things, and it's never the same when you re-read, read ten, fifteen times the same things. And in a seminar, a speech that would not seem, from the first pages, he says amazing things. He said: "The speech of the unconscious is an emergence. It is the emergence of a certain function of the signifier." Should be reviewed everything he says, especially taken in a very difficult text 's Stuns The calls, pretending that speaks just as the agent of discourse, that is to say officer structure. But the speech is precisely the setting in motion the signifier. For those who have it in mind is: Æ S1 S2, S1 and below it are blocked S - is the master discourse - and box production is a. But the semblance is the first box from top left, that is to say what will run, be the agent of discourse. The agent of discourse, this does not mean we will begin to talk like the Chamber of Deputies! Even if you do not say anything, you can be in say, and speech is initiated. But precisely in schizophrenia, the agent's speech is completely crumbled and the object of desire itself is broken. It is therefore a process that should make all the architectonics, the entire mapping.
Logic portion
I say "freedom of movement", it means that for there to be freedom of movement it requires that there is, of course, a space, and traffic already in the concrete sense of the word, to walk. Have the freedom to walk, it's sometimes have the freedom to stay put. Because traffic is not just with his feet, it can also be in the head: a movement, freedom to be quiet. I often someone important in the administration who told me some years ago: "But what can we do for you?" I replied: "We fuck alone!" Sure I was not well seen, but nonetheless it is very important to be there, not in the sense of spontaneity spontaneity most decadent, but in a structure that allows it worth the glance to go from one point to another. I simplify: to get from one point to another, it means that if one takes two points A and B, B should not be as A, otherwise it does not worth to travel and fatigue. But if there is a tablature differentiation, cest to say a sort of table of distinctiveness, this time we can go from one point to another, knowing that every point at which it will not happen will not be the same as the first. It is ultimately a table structure: the freedom of movement requires that there be a table of distinctiveness. One could say in a very fancy it is a bit like the big Other, with distinctive, concatenations, lots of things like that. It is clear that it is precisely these distinctive working we can change something routes or paths. But this is not to say to someone: "Go around!" It must come alone. Not all alone like that, there must have in the world, ie there must be others. This requires a collective structure where we can grow "with the" well being wary of the word. I tried to do with a metapsychology of where should we put this? I put it between the front and the primal impulses - that finally this is my business! - But I was wary the myth began, it began to say in German: with the. But the important thing is that there is the "possibilisations" because there are others who are there. We know that in psychosis - but unfortunately it is not only in psychosis - the other does not. There is a kind of confusion of self and other, but we are not here to try to open it by force, by any behaviorism ... These are limitations that are not even limits, limits which are not limited between himself and another. It is there for this to open, with certain conditions. And for that to happen, it is necessary to change the logic, not to stay locked up in this pseudo-scientific nature of the end of the century. That the establishment of concentration camps that leads a logical positivism degenerated. What matters to report to another, it is certainly not complete questionnaires or making assessments ... I often say that the questionnaires have replaced the real issues. What is at issue is often a small detail ... it lies in the details. It is a sentence from the Kabbalah: "God lies in the details." But there is no God that lies in the details, there also has investments that can change someone's life. But to get there, how? The logic of which I speak is a very complex logic. That road already requires that there be transition from one point to another, a logical transition. For the logic of the passage, see for example this great specialist of the passage (which was unfortunately killed in a passage because he was pursued by the SS), called Walter Benjamin. He had studied all the passages quoted Baudelaire, all the passages of Paris and other cities. Passages, this account is clear certain thresholds crossed. We spoke earlier of Guattari and "cross" Felix is just the same. To cross passages, what logic does it take? This is particularly the one we can resume in great detail from deciphering who are now highly developed, the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. (I have friends in Perpignan that are highly specialized in Peirce.) And what is overlooked in traditional epistemology, both in Karl Popper than in many others, is that there, in addition inductive inferences and inferences deductive, there is what Peirce called "abductive inferences". Yet what matters in life of everyone? This is important, deduction and induction, but it must first be there for the abduction. Pierre et Marie Curie, for example, their discovery of radium by abduction took place: it was by chance that by opening a drawer they found exposed plates. What does that mean? They did not purposely put sensitive plates with indescribable ore. From there, they made an abduction: this reaction was not an artifact. For simplicity, I often say that the best way to talk about the abduction, is the way Antonio Machado, English poet extraordinary about it: "The path is made by walking." There is no path. So when people ask me: "What is your treatment plan?", I reply: "The path is made by walking." Because if there is a project, if a line, if a period of stay, if there are things like that, damn it. Here there will be no path that will be walking, you're not on highways, in everyday life. It is in this desire: it is precisely in the path that is made by walking, for freedom, there may by chance at an intersection or not, but by chance a meeting. A real meeting, not just hello, good evening. A real encounter is the same as the analytic interpretation, that is to say that it changes anything. After this meeting, it will not be the same as before. A real encounter is the tuch. Lacan in The Four concepts in the chapter "Automaton and Tuch", referring to the tuch: it is chance that touches something that is going to register, who will do the actual path, we do may not clear. And after that will never be the same. Then, in a collective system like this, with schizophrenia, there may be real encounters, but you can not program them. I often say that we must program the chance, but it has been misunderstood: it is necessary to program the fact that there may be freedom of movement that allow there to be random and the constellation. But we will not say: "Tonight you'll meet by chance!" That's ridiculous.
Being somewhere and feel
There. This is a preview, but this should be say more. For example, what I called 'space to say ". This may sound weird, "said space," but it came to me in a reflection on the work of Gisela Pankow, whom I know very well, and have always developed the concept of "graft transfer. In psychosis, what I call the original narcissism is completely ruined, with crevices, often in connection with structural defects of the big Other. For example, in family structure and psychosis (this is a wonderful book), Gisela Pankow shows the relationship between the lived body and the institutional structure of the family. Ultimately, it is an institution, family, and not so funny as that! I am thinking in particular a schizophrenic, whose characteristic was (which is found in many schizophrenics) to be "nowhere". Where is he? Nowhere! Salomon Resnik, who is a friend, take the example clinic. Only a small part of the schizophrenic who is there. He left the other side also, he should perhaps go for what remained outside the office: there are nine-tenths are elsewhere, it is important to know! There is nowhere, then, before a discourse analytic concrete - you can tell history, or rather "historial" within the meaning of Heidegger, Geschichte, meaning the takeover of a story - it must be the schizophrenic somewhere. That's what Pankow insists, rightly: temporalize something before it is necessary, not really spatialized, but one must be somewhere. Must be defined in its body, do not be like Magritte or Dali with a transparent body which we see through the mountains, repeat all that. And it requires a huge effort, not simply an effort relationship, but also a collective effort. I often tell the story of a schizophrenic nowhere. It could be "nowhere" such a type hyper intelligent, invent stuff, it was even invented to make profits to Safely! It was worth it! He sent it to all embassies in the world. But he was not in his room or on a chair or in a dining room ... Nowhere! Fortunately, he was patched up on a bicycle, carrying a typewriter, paper over ... but it was tragic! So much so that sometimes I wanted to see him (by forcing a little bit), after five minutes I stopped, otherwise, in the office, he would have fallen in the apples, he was sweating, it was extraordinary. So to talk to him (I saw it ten yards, or he could not stand), when I wrote the post. He received my letter saying that I would love to see such a day at such an hour. It was there, at La Borde, but it does not matter, he received the letter. But one day, we have modified the so-called, at La Borde, "ground floor". What a story the ground floor of the castle was a place of passage, of life, but often lousy, especially after the post sixty-eighters who did not understand. But once it was cleaned up a bit, it returned alive. In After a year, I was told: "You know, John Doe, the schizophrenic wandering nowhere, tonight he came to eight hours sitting in an armchair in the sitting room, he unfolded a newspaper, he was quiet, he remained until ten o'clock. "Oh! this may seem silly, it took years of guerrilla bands called "caregivers", a huge work to get there! Although he only stayed two hours, what a success! It's like the smile just now. The next day, someone told me (one that was not schizophrenic at all, but a patient who had been there a long time): "It's funny, last night at ten o'clock I was near the lounge, I sat, I knitted, and I thought it had been years since I had not felt so good! "It was no accident. There was something about the atmosphere at the level of what I call "collusion" (the science of cats: Close the eyelids). There was a complicity that had changed, there was a different air, a different atmosphere. And it is with the atmosphere that treats people. It is not by making speeches, doing the evil, the Mariola saying: "I'm Professor Machin!" It makes me laugh is the horn that! It's more with the atmosphere, but it takes a lot of work. And he can then create the space to say. The space that is not something that can command like this, on the spot: "I'll create a space to say!" Is something that happens here, as an effect of meaning or effect of emergence. One might think that there is "pretending" there, the emergence of something in relation to the order of say, a say that is not said. It's the same distinction that often made between language and language: the language, it is spoken, while the language is an infinitely complex structure. Can be accessed and one or the other, but mostly through the cracks, that is to say, by the between-known, through just something that the "joint", which is between words. Lacan said: "Between words and between lines." Meaning, it's between the lines. We know that the context (refer to Roland Barthes, Hjelmslev and others), the context is precisely what gives the connotative meaning. Lacan also says: "Between the lines, what is it? It the riddle. "He's absolutely right. And if you do not access, even without knowing that it is the riddle, it is completely off base. So if we want a a little respect for ethics of others, that is to say of his unconscious desire and unattainable, we can not just force, we must simply do emerge, it is considered in the other its mystery and certainly not even want to delete this riddle ... We are not in glasnost, it is not transparent. What I call respect for others is the opacity other. This does not mean that we will really care, however. This is where we introduce exercises near and far, that we should really work the dialectic, to be just as close to each other, but without playing touch-button! Being closest to the other, is precisely the distance to take another in its opacity. And it is this dimension of mystery, which Lacan speaks very well, which is in question when it comes to desire. Desire, it's still enigmatic and inaccessible, but that is what makes value, almost the soul ultimately, someone. And we are dealing with this. So how to treat it? This is not to say, 'I'm a great analyst and I'm psychoses. "If the type emphasized too much, it's better to say:" It's a megalomaniac delusion that you have my poor guy is incurable! You think you're what? This omnipotence, by your word, your presence, you'll heal the world? Fun! "A little modesty, otherwise we fall into megalomania, analytical or otherwise.
The Kinesis of the Logos
That's what I wanted to say a few words. Course would require much greater development. But ultimately - and I'll stay here to allow time to discuss - what is at issue in all this, if you wanted to say things in a more traditional way is that works (just as Heraclitus said already, long before Plato) at the logos. And logos, it's not just talk. The logos is the implementation report is the measure, the proportions, but at the same time that the collection, recollection of something. That's why I think that Lacan had reason to be translated, in the first issue of the Journal Psychoanalysis of the French society of the time in 1955, the text of Heidegger on Heraclitus and the logos. It is not by chance. I often add that what is at issue is through the movement itself, because there are no logos without movement is what I call the "kinesis of the logos." However, we are here at the kinesis of the logos. If it does not work if you do not activate within the meaning of active methods, we are not at the kinesis of the logos. We are not at the rally, and then we will be even further away from all the troubles of schizophrenic dissociation, which are inaccessible. Saw the flowering now - if we can say bloom - vile things that are in the camps, but under another name, that is to say, healthcare establishments, without serious activities and where no one cares more people. Do not think that I make a distinction between psychiatry and psychoanalysis, do not laugh! Because psychoanalysis is still to do and invent, and psychiatry would still, too, long way to go, instead of being destroyed as it is emerging now. That's pretty much what I meant, in associations called "free", more or less, by walking in the path that is made by walking, freedom movement and space to say.
Jean Oury La Borde Clinic
Link Source: http://www.cemea.asso.fr/spip.php?article2944
0 comments:
Post a Comment