December 2006 - Topologos

[Lutecium-group] la suture de J.A Miller ver anglophone
by frans.tassigny＠gmail.com 25 Dec '06

25 Dec '06

No-one without those precise conceptions of analysis which only a personal analysis can provide has any right to concern himself (or herself) with it. Ladies and Gentlemen, doubtless you fully con- form to the strength of that ruling by Freud in the *New Introductory Lectures*. Thus, articulated as a dilemma, a question raises itself foe me in your regard. If, contravening this injunction, it is of psychoanalysis that I am going to speak, - then. by listening to someone whom you know to be incapable of producing the credentials which alone would authorize your assent, what are you doing here? Or. if my subject is not psychoanalysis. - then you who so faith- fully attend here in order to become conversant with the problems which relate to the Freudian field, what are you doing here! And you above all. Ladies and Gentlemen the analysts, what arc you doing here. you to whom Freud specifically addressed the warning not to rely on those who are not confirmed in the practice of your science, on those so-called authorities, those literary intellectuals, who bring their soup to warm at your fire, without so much as recognizing your hospitality? Even if he who reigns in your kitchens as head-chef could amuse himself by letting someone lower than the lowest kitchen boy get hold of the pot with which you are so naturally concerned since it is from it that you draw your sustenance, it was still uncertain - and I confess that I myself doubted - that you would be ready to drink in a soup merely cooked up in that way. And yet you are here. Permit me to marvel a moment at your presence, and at the privilege of your having lent me for a while that most precious of the organs at your disposal, your ear. Which I must now attempt to justify to it, and with reasons which are at least admissible. I will not keep you waiting. The justification lies in this, which will come as no surprise after the developments which have so enchanted your hearing at this seminar since the start of the academic year, that the Freudian field is not representable as a closed surface. The opening up of psychoanalysis is not the effect of the liberalism, the whim. the blindness even of he who has set himself as its guardian. For. if not being situated on the inside does not relegate you to the outside, it is because at a certain point, excluded from a two-dimensional topology, the two surfaces join up and the periphery or outer edge crosses over the circumscription. That I can recognize and occupy that point is what releases you from the dilemma I presented to you. and entitles you to be listening to me to-day. Which will enable you to grasp. Ladies and Gentlemen, to what extent you arc implicated in my undertaking and how far its successful outcome concerns you. *Concept of the Logic of the Signifier* What I am aiming to restore, piecing together indications dispersed ' through the work of Jacques Lacan, is to be designated the logic of the signifier - it is a general logic in that its functioning is formal in relation to all fields of knowledge including that of psychoanalysis which, in acquiring a specificity there, it governs; it is a minimal logic in that within it are given those pieces only which arc necessary to assure it a progression reduced to a linear movement, uniformally generated at each point of its necessary sequence. That this logic should be called the logic of the signifier avoids the partiality of the conception which would limit its validity to the field in which it was first produced as a category; to correct its linguistic declension is to prepare the way for its importation into other discourses, an importation which we will not fail to carry out once we have grasped its essentials here. The chief advantage to be gained from this process of minimisation is the greatest economy of conceptual expenditure, which is then in danger of obscuring to you that the conjunctions which it effects between certain functions are so essential that to neglect them is to compromise analytic reasoning proper. By considering the relationship between this logic and that which I will call logician's logic, we see that its particularity lies in the fact that the first treats of the emergence of the second. and should be conceived of as the logic of the origin of logic - which is to say, chat it docs not follow its laws, but that, prescribing their jurisdiction, itself falls outside that jurisdiction. This dimension of the archeological can be grasped most succinctly through a movement back from the field of logic itself, where its miscognition. at its most radical because closest to is recognition is effected. That this step repeats something of that which Derrida has shown to be exemplary to phenomenology [1]<http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftn1>will conceal to none but the most hasty this crucial difference, that here miscognition finds its point of departure in the production of meaning. We can say that it is constituted not as a forgetting, but as a repression. To designate it I choose the name of suture. Suture names the relation of the subject to the chain of its discourse; we shall see that it figures there as the clement which is lacking, in the form of a stand-in. For, while there lacking, it is not purely and simply absent. Suture, by extension - the general relation of lack to the structure - of which it is an element, inasmuch as it implies the position of a taking-the-place-of. It is the objective of this paper to articulate the concept of suture which, if it is not named explicitly as such by Jacques Lacan. is constantly present in his system. Let it be absolutely clear that it is not as philosopher or philosopher's apprentice that I am speaking here - if the philosopher is as characterized by Heinrich Heine in a sentence quoted by Freud, "with his nightcaps and the tatters of his dressing- gown. patching up the gaps in the structure of the universe". But take care not to think that the function of suturation is peculiar to the philosopher: what is specific to the philosopher is the determination of the field in which he operates as a "universal structure". It is important that you realize that the logician, like the linguist. also sutures at his particular level. And, quite as much. anyone who says "I". In order to grasp suture we must cut across what a discourse makes explicit of itself, and distinguish from its meaning, its letter. This paper is concerned with a letter - a dead letter. It should come as no surprise if the meaning then dies. The main thread of this analysis will be Gottlob Frege's argument in *Grundlagen der Arithmetik*, [2]<http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftn2>crucial here because it puts into question those terms which in Peano's axiomatic, adequate for a construction of a theory of natural numbers, are taken as primary - that is. the zero, the number, the successor. [3]<http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftn3>This calling into question of the theory, by disintricating, from the axiomatic where the theory is consolidated, the suturing, delivers up this last. *The Zero and the One* - Here then is the question posed in its most general form; what is it that functions in the series of whole natural numbers to which we can assign their progression? And the answer, which I shall give at once before establishing it: in the process of the constitution of the series, in the genesis of progression, the function of the subjet, miscognized is operative. This proposition will certainly appear as a paradox to anyone who knows that the logical discourse of Frege opens with the exclusion of that which is held by empiricist theory to be essential for the passage of the thing to the unit, and of the set of units to the unit of number: that is, the function of the subject, as support of the operations of abstraction and unification. For the unity which is thus assured both for the individual and the set, it only holds in so far as the number functions as its name. Whence originates the ideology which makes of the subject the producer of fictions, short of recognizing it as the product of its product - an ideology in which logical and psychological discourse are wedded, with political discourse occupying the key position, which can be seen admitted in Occam, concealed in Locke, and miscognized thereafter. A subject therefore, defined by attributes whose other side is political, disposing as of powers, of a faculty of memory necessary to close the set without the loss of any of the interchangeable elements, and a faculty of repetition which operates inductively. There is no doubt that it is this subject which Frege, setting himself from the start against the empiricist foundation of arithmetic. excludes from the field in which the concept of the number is to appear. But if it is held that the subject is not reducible, in its most essential function, to the psychological, then its exclusion from the field of number is assimilable to repetition. Which is what I have to demonstrate. You will be aware that Frege's discourse starts from the fundamental system comprising the three concepts of the concept, the object and the number, and two relations, that of the concept to the object, which is called subsumption and that of the concept to the number which I will call assignation. A number is assigned to a concept which subsumes objects. What is specifically logical about this system is that each concept is only defined and exists solely through the relation which it maintains as subsumer with that which it subsumes. Similarly, an object only has existence in so far as it falls under a concept. there being no other determination involved in its logical existence, so that the object takes its meaning from its difference to the thing integrated, by its spatio-temporal localization, to the real. Whence you can see the disappearance of the thing which must be effected in order for it to appear as object - which is the thing in so far as it is one, It is dear that the concept which operates in the system. formed solely through the determination of subsumption, is a redoubled concept: the concept of identity to a concept. This redoubling. induced in the concept by identity, engenders the logical dimension, because in effecting the disappearance of the thing it gives rise to the emergence of the numerable. For example, if 1 group what falls under the concept "child of Agamemnon and Cassandra", I summon in order to subsume them Pelops and Teledamus. To this set I can only assign a number if I put into play the concept 'identical to the concept: child of Agamemnon and Cassandra'. Through the effect of the fiction of (his concept, the children now intervene in so far as each one is. so to speak, applied to itself - which transforms it into a unit, and gives to it the status of an object which is numerable as such. It is this one of the singular unit. this one of identity of the subsumed, which is common to all numbers in so far as they are first constituted as units. >From this can be deduced the definition of the assignation of number: according to Frege "the number assigned to the concept F is the extension of the concept identical to the concept F". Frege's ternary system has as its effect that all that is left to the thing is the support of its identity with itself, by which it is the object of the operative concept, and hence numerable. The process that I have just set out authorizes me to conclude the following proposition, whose relevance will emerge later, - the unit which could be called unifying of the concept in so far as it is assigned by the number is subordinate to the unit as distinctive in so far as it supports the number. As for the position of the distinctive unit. its foundation is to be situated in the function of identity which, conferring on each thing of the world the property of being one. effects its transformation into an object of the (logical) concept. At this point in the construction, you will sense all the importance of the definition of identity which I am going to present. This definition which must give its true meaning to the concept of number, must borrow nothing from it [4]<http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftn4>- precisely in order to ^ engender numeration. _ This definition, which is pivotal to his system. Frege takes from Leibniz. It is contained in this statement: *eadem sunt quorum unum potest substitui alteri salva veritate*. Those things are identical of which one can be substituted for the other *salva veritate* without loss of truth. Doubtless you can estimate the crucial importance of what is effected by this statement: the emergence of the function of truth. Yet what it assumes is more important than what it expresses. That is, identity-with-itself. That a thing cannot be substituted for itself, then where does this leave truth? Absolute is its subversion. If we follow Leibniz's argument, the failing of truth whose possibility is opened up for an instant, its loss through the substitution for one thins of another, would be followed by its immediate reconstitution in a new relation: truth is recovered because the substituted thing, in that it is identical with itself, can be the object of a judgement and enter into the order of discourse: identical with itself, it can be articulated. But that a thing should not be identical with itself subverts the field of truth, ruins it and abolishes it. You will grasp to what extent the preservation of truth is implicated in this identity with itself which connotes the passage from the thing to the object. Identity-with-itself is essential if truth is to be saved. Truth is. Each thing is identical with Itself. Let us now put into operation Frege's schema, that is, go through the three-stage itinerary which he prescribes to us. Let there be a thing X of the world. Let there be the empirical concept of this X. The concept which finds a place in the schema is not this empirical concept but that which redoubles it, being "identical with the concept of X". The object which falls under this concept is X itself" as a unit. In this the number, which is the third term of the sequence, to be assigned to the concept of X will be the number 1. Which means that this function of the number 1 is repetitive for all things of the world. It is in this sense that this 1 is only the unit which constitutes the number as such. and not the 1 in its personal identity as number with its own particular place and a proper name in the series of numbers. Furthermore, its construction demands that. in order to transform it. we call upon a thing of the world - which, according to Frege. cannot be: the logical must be sustained through nothing but itself. In order for the number to pass from the repetition of the 1 of the identical to that of its ordered succession, in order for the logical dimension to gain its autonomy definitively, without any reference to the real, the zero has to appear. Which appearance is obtained because truth is. Zero is the assigned to the concept "not identical with itself". In effect, let there be the concept "not identical with itself". This concept, by virtue of being a concept, has an extension, subsumes an object. Which object? None. Since truth is, no object falls into the place of the subsumed of this concept, and the number which qualifies its extension is zero. In this engendering of the zero. I have stressed that it is sup- ported by the proposition that truth is. If no object falls under the concept of non-identical-with-itself. it is because truth must be saved. If there are no things which are not identical with them- selves, it is because non-identity with itself is contradictory to the very dimension of truth. To its concept, we assign the zero. It is this decisive proposition that the concept of not-ldentical-with- itself is assigned by the number zero which sutures logical discourse. For, and here I am working across Frege's text. in the auto- nomous construction of the logical through itself, it has been necessary, in order to exclude any reference to the real, to evoke on the level of the concept an object not-identical-with-itself - to be subsequently rejected from the dimension of truth. The zero which is inscribed in the place of the number con- summates the exclusion of this object. As for this place, marked out by subsumption, in which the object is lacking, there nothing can be written, and if a o must be traced, it is merely in order to figure a blank, to render visible the lack. >From the zero lack to the zero number, the non-conceptualisable is conceptualized. Let us now set aside the zero lack in order to consider only that which is produced by the alternation of its evocation and its revocation, the zero number. The zero understood as a number, which assigns to the subsuming concept the lack of an object, is as such a thing - the first non-real thing in thought. If of the number zero we construct the concept, it subsumes as its sole object the number zero. The number which assigns it is therefore 1. Frege's system works by the circulation of an element, at each of the places it fixes: from the number zero to its concept, from this concept to its object and to its number - a circulation which produces the 1. [5]<http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftn5>This system is thus so constituted with the o counting as 1. The counting of the 0 as 1 (whereas the concept of, the zero subsumes nothing in the real but a blank) is the general support of the series of numbers. It is this which is demonstrated by Frege's analysis of the operation of the successor, which consists of obtaining the number which follows n by adding to it a unit: n' the successor of n, is equal to n + 1, that is, ... n... (n + 1) = n'... Frege opens out the n + 1 in order to discover what is involved in the passage from n to its successor. You will grasp the paradox of this engendering as soon as I produce the most general formula for the successor which Frege arrives at: the Number assigned to the concept "member of the series of natural numbers ending with n" follows in the series of natural numbers directly after n'. Let us take a number. The number three. It will serve to constitute the concept "member of the series of natural numbers ending with three". We find that the number assigned to this concept is four. Here then is the 1 of n + 1. Where does it come from? Assigned to its redoubled concept, the number 3 functions as the unifying name of a set: as reserve. In the concept of' member of the series of natural numbers ending with 3", it is the term (in the sense both of element and of final element). In the order of the real. the 3 subsumes 3 objects. In the order of number, which is that of discourse bound by truth, it is numbers which are counted: before the 3, there are 3 numbers - it is therefore the fourth. In the order of number, there if an addition the 0 and the 0 counts for 1. The displacement of a number, from the function of reserve to that of term, implies the summation of the 0. Whence the successor. That which in the real is pure and simple absence finds itself through the fact of number (through the instance of truth) noted o and counted for 1. Which is why we say the object not-identical with itself invoked-rejected by truth, instituted-annulled by discourse (subsumption as such) - in a word, sutured. The emergence of the lack as 0, and of 0 as 1 determines the appearance of the successor. Let there be n; the lack is fixed as which is fixed as 1: n + 1; which is added in order to give n' - which absorbs the 1. Certainly, if the Lot n + 1 is nothing other than the counting the zero, the function of addition of the sign + is superfat1ory, and we must restore to the horizontal representation of the engendering its verticality: the 1 is to be taken as the primary symbol of the emergence of lack in the field of truth, and the sign + indicates the crossing, the transgression through which the 0 lack comes to be represented as 1, producing, through this difference of n to n' which you have seen to be an effect of meaning the name of a number. Logical representation collapses this three-level construction. The operation I have effected opens it out. If you consider the opposition of these two axes, you will understand what is at stake in logical suturing, and the difference of the logic which I am putting forward to logician's logic. That zero is a number: such is the proposition which assures logical dimension of its closure. Our purpose has been to recognize in the zero number the suturing stand-in for the lack. Remember here the hesitation perpetuated in the work of Bertand Russell concerning its localization (interior? or exterior to the series of numbers?). The generating repetition of the series of numbers is sustained by this, that the zero lack passes, first along a vertical axis, across the bar which limits the field of truth in order to be represented there as one, subsequently cancelling out as meaning in each of the names of the numbers which are caught up in the metonymic chain of successional progression. Just as the zero as lack of the contradictory object must be distinguished from that which sutures this absence in the series of numbers, so the 1. as the proper name of a number, is to be distinguished from that which comes to fix in a trait the zero of the not-identical with itself sutured by the identity with itself, which is the law of discourse in the field of truth. The central paradox to be grasped (which as you will see in a moment is the paradox of the signifier in the sense of Lacan) is that the trait of the identical represents the non-identical, whence is deduced the impossibility of its redoubling, [6]<http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftn6>and from that impossibility the structure of repetition, as the process of differentiation of the identical. Now, if the series of numbers, metonymy of the zero, begins with its metaphor, if the o member of the series as number is only the standing-in-place suturing the absence (of the absolute zero) which moves beneath the chain according to the alternation of a representation and an exclusion - then what is there to stop us from seeing in the restored relation of the zero to the series of numbers the most elementary articulation of the subject's relation to the signifying chain? The impossible object, which the discourse of logic summons as the not-identical with itself and then rejects as the pure negative, which it summons and rejects in order to constitute itself as that which it is, which it summons and rejects wanting to know nothing of it, we name this object, in so far as it functions as the excess which operates in the series of numbers, the subject. Its exclusion from the discourse which internally it intimates is suture. If we now determine the trail as the signifier, and ascribe to the number the position of signified, the relation of lack to the trait should be considered as the logic of the signifier. *Relation of Subject and Signifier* In effect, what in Lacanian algebra is called the relation of the subject to the field of the Other (as the locus of truth) can be identified with the relation which the zero entertains with the identity of the unique as the support of truth. This relation, in so far as it is matrical, cannot be integrated into any definition of objectivity - this being the doctrine of Lacan. The engendering of the zero. from this not-identical with itself under which no thing of the world falls, illustrates this to you. What constitutes this relation as the matrix of the chain must be isolated in the implication which makes the determinant of ( exclusion of the subject outside the field of the Other its representation in that field in the form of the one of the unique. one of distinctive unity, which is called "unary" by Lacan. In algebra, this exclusion is marked by the bar which strikes the S of the subject in from of the capital A, and which is displaced by the identity of the subject onto the A, according to the fundamental exchange of the logic of the signifier, a displacement whose effect is the emergence of signification signified to the subject. Untouched by the exchange of the bar, this exteriority of the subject to the Other is maintained, which institutes the unconscious. For: - if it is clear that the tripartition which divides (1) the signified-to-the-subject, (2) the signifying chain whose radical alterity in relation to the subject cuts off the subject from its field, and finally (3) the external field of this reject, cannot be covered by the linguistic dichotomy of signified and signifier; - if the consciousness of the subject is to be situated on the level of the effects of signification, governed, so much so that they could even be called its reflections, by the repetition of the signifier: - if repetition itself is produced by the vanishing of the subject and its passage as lack - then only the unconscious can name the progression which constitutes the chain in the order of thought. On the level of this constitution, the definition of the subject comes down to the possibility o/ one signifier more. Is it not ultimately to this function of excess that can be referred the power of thematisation, which Dedekind assigns to the subject in order to give to set theory its theorem of existence? The possibility of existence of an enumerable infinity can be explained by this, that "from the moment that one proposition is true, 1 can always produce a second, that is, that the first is true and so on to infinity". [7]<http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftn7> In order to ensure that this recourse to the subject as the founder of iteration is not a recourse to psychology, we simply substitute for thematisation the representation of the subject (as signifier) which excludes consciousness because it is not effected for someone, but, in the chain, in the field of truth, for the signifier which precedes it. When Lacan faces the definition of the sign as that which represents something for someone, with that of the signifier as that which represents the subject for another signifier. he is stressing that in so far as the signifying chain is concerned, it is on the level of its effects and not of its cause that consciousness is to be situated. The insertion of the subject into the chain is representation, necessarily correlative to an exclusion which is a vanishing. If now we were to try and develop in time the relation which engenders and supports the signifying chain, we would have to take into account the fact that temporal succession is under the dependency of the linearity of the chain. The time of engendering can only be circular - which is why both these propositions are true at one and the same time. that subject is anterior to signifier and that signifier is anterior to subject - but only appears as such after the introduction of the signifier. The retroaction consists essentially of this: the birth of linear time. We must hold together the definitions which make the subject the effect of the signifier and the signifier the representative of the subject: it is a circular. though non-reciprocal, relation. By crossing logical discourse at its point of least resistance, that of its suture, you can see articulated the structure of the subject: as a "flickering in eclipses", like the movement which opens and closes the number, and delivers up the lack in the form of the 1 in order to abolish it in the successor. As for the +. you have understood the unprecedented function which it takes on in the logic of the signifier (a sign, no longer of addition, but of that summation of the subject in the field of the Other, which calls for its annulment). It remains to disarticulate it in order to separate the unary trait of emergence, and the bar of the reject: thereby making manifest the division of the subject which is the other name for its alienation. It will be deduced from this that the signifying chain is structure of the structure. If structural causality (causality in the structure in so far as the subject is implicated in it) is not an empty expression, it is from the minimal logic which I have developed here that it will find its status. We leave for another time the construction of its concept. *Notes:* [1] <http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftnref1> Edmund Husserl, *L'origine de la g?ometrie*, translation and introduction by Jacques Derrida, PUF, 1962. [2] <http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftnref2> German text with English translation published under the title *The Foundations of Arithmetic*, Basil Blackwell, 1953. [3] <http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftnref3> Our reading will not concern itself with any of Frege'g various inflections of his basic purpose, and will therefore keep outside the thematisation of the difference of meaning and reference, as well as of the later definition of the concept in terms of predication, from which is deduced its non-saturation. [4] <http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftnref4> Which is why we must say identity and not equality. [5] <http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftnref5> I leave aside the commentary of paragraph 76 which gives the abstract definition of contiguity. [6] <http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftnref6> And, at another level, the impossibility of meta-language (cf by Jacques Lacan, *Cahiers pour 1'analyse*, No I, 1966). [7] <http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html#_ftnref7> Dedekind, quoted by Cavailles (*Philosophie math?mathique*, p 124, Hermann, 1962). ------------------------------ This text was published in French in *Cahiers pour l'analyse* 1, Winter 1966, subsequently its English version translated by Jacqueline Rose appeared in *Screen* 18, Winter 1978. <http://www.lacan.com/> (c) lacan.com 1997/2006 Copyright Notice. Please respect the fact that this material in LACAN.COM is copyright. Available only through EBSCO Publishing. Inc. It is made available here without charge for personal use only. It may not be stored, displayed, published, reproduced, or used for any other purpose. -- Tassigny Frans Sint Fransiscusstraat 25 8400 Ostende BELGIQUE 0496 85 56 82 nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/

2 1

[Lutecium-group] L'infini des évaluations
by catherine-grandjean＠cegetel.net 24 Dec '06

24 Dec '06

Cette id?e d'?valuation me semble devoir ?tre tr?s nuanc?e. Voici les quelques id?es qui me sont venues, peut-?tre un peu trop abruptes... Il y a dans la rencontre analytique, une part d'al?atoire. On a l'analyste que l'on m?rite, mais on a aussi les patients que l'on m?rite. L'al?atoire de la rencontre analytique, c'est une affaire d'inconscients. Que peut-on ?valuer l? dedans ? L'al?atoire de la rencontre d'inconscients peut-il ?tre ?valu? ? Evaluera-t-on toutes les rencontres manqu?es, ?valuera-t-on pourquoi des patients ne reviennent pas ? Non. L'?valuation ne portera que sur les patients que nous recevons. L'id?e d'?valuation, si on ne croit qu'en elle, me semble faire fi de l'al?atoire de la rencontre, c'est-?-dire de l'inconscient des protagonistes. C'est une id?e positiviste qui renvoie au placard le R?el. Le R?el des rencontres qui se jouissent de ne pas avoir eues lieu, mais aussi le R?el qui persiste encore dans les longues analyses et qui disent sans le dire que la rencontre n'est jamais toute. Une autre association d'id?e me vient, qui vaudra ce qu'elle vaudra : Pourquoi ne pas aller jusqu'? dire que le rapport sexuel existe ? Et l'?valuer. Le champs de la jouissance est-il ?valuable ? L'odeur du sexe est-elle ?valuable ? Peut-?tre y a-t-il ? garder que l'entr?e dans le Symbolique est ?valuable, que les effets du symbolique sont ?valuables. Encore faut-il pouvoir se dire que ?a s'arr?te l?, l'?valuation. Autre chose encore : l'analyse est celle de l'analysant. Et pour lui aussi, ?a ne cesse pas de ne pas s'?crire. Qui pourrait tout ?valuer de sa propre analyse ? Tout en dire ? Tout en conclure ? Alors m?me qu'elle continue de faire ses effets, d'ouvrir son champs, bien au-del? de son terme ? Qu'?valuera-t-on de cet in?dit sans terme ?chu ? Il y a le temps. Evaluer, ce serait ?valuer ? un instant t ? Ce serait alors reconna?tre l'infini des ?valuations, comme limite ? celles-ci. -- Catherine

2 1

[Lutecium-group] Bonnes fêtes de fin d'année avec Nikki de Saint Phalle
by Liliane.Fainsilber＠wanadoo.fr 24 Dec '06

24 Dec '06

Bonnes f?tes ? tous. Liliane Fainsilber Le go?t de la psychanalyse : http://perso.orange.fr/liliane.fainsilber/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean-Paul Kornobis To: alef1 at yahoogroupes.fr Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 9:59 AM Subject: [alef1] Bonnes f?tes de fin d'ann?e Bonnes f?tes de fin d'ann?e A.l.e.p.h. & Savoirs et clinique __._,_.___ Messages pour ce th?me (0) R?pondre (par envoi Web) | Commencer un nouveau th?me Messages | Fichiers | Photos | Liens | Base de donn?es | Sondages | Membres | Agenda Modifier vos options par le Web ((Compte Yahoo! requis) Modifier vos options par mail : Activer l'envoi group? | Activer le format Traditionnel Aller sur votre groupe | Conditions d'utilisation de Yahoo! Groupes | D?sinscription Aller sur votre groupe Yahoo! 360? Partagez l'essentiel Blog et photos avec vos proches. Yahoo! Groupes Cr?ez votre groupe Partagez vos go?ts avec les autres. Y! Toolbar 100% gratuit ! En 1 clic, acc?dez ? vos groupes. . __,_._,___

2 1

[Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison
by mariadsouza＠terra.com.br 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

M. Lacan a-t-il jamais "bien" d?t quelque chose? et si oui pourquoi ne pas y puiser les interrogations qui angoissent un certain Yann qui ne sait quoi faire avec les 100 Euros qu'on lui paye pour chaque session, du moins c'est ce qu'il dit pour vouloir determiner des "crit?res" qui soient valables pour tout cas d'analyse en oubliant (ou en d?-connaissant) que l'analyse c'est du domainde du particulier... alors si M. Yann ? des probl?mes avec sa pratique, il doit aler plus loin, ?crire un th?se, d?crire ses cas, et proposer une th?orie d'?valuation de la cure analytique... allez-y. hier je lisais Acte Psychanalytique, oui, quelqu'un qui, toutes les semaines pendant 2 d?c?nnies s'est donner la peine de parler sur son v?cu... ?a devrait servir ? quelque chose. "Dieu sait, que je n'ai jamais ?t? si loin, et pour cause, dans la mise en question de l'analyse et il est en effet remarquable aussi bien qu'?trange, que dans les cercles o? l'on s'attache le plus ? maintenir socialement son statut, les questions puissent en somme ? l'int?rieur du dit cercle ?tre pouss?es si loin qu'il ne s'agisse de rien moins que de savoir si l'analyse en elle-m?me est fond?e ou illusoire." ----- Original Message ----- From: "kika" <mariadsouza at terra.com.br> To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison > et juste pour revenir ? quelque chose qui semble si obscure pour ceux qui > veulent l'obscurcir: > > "une psychanalyse, type ou non, est la cure qu'on attend d'un > psychanalyste". >

1 0

[Lutecium-group] Psynël
by frans.tassigny＠gmail.com 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

A la "Une" : La mondialisation n'est pas heureuse<http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/la-mondialisation-nest-pas-heureus…> Psychanalyse La psychanalyse a pos? ses outils, ses armes ? bout de bras, au bout de nos bras frapp?s d'invalidite devant les puissants du monde et de leurs menaces. L'institution fonctionne gr?ce ? des signes creux dont toute pens?e s'est longuement ?vent?e. Au sein de cette institution n'a normalement cours qu'une seule monaie ? son effigie et pour son seul usage, voici les conditions requises pour que la psychanalyse se meurt aux pieds du pouvoir. Tassigny Frans franstassigny at hotmail.com Pour Lionel Naccache un sc?nario du r?el<http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/pour-lionel-naccache-un-scnario-du…> L'Association Psychanalyse et M?decine<http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/lassociation-psychanalyse-et-mdeci…> l'enfant sans nom de E.Durif<http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/lenfant-sans-nom-de-edurif.html> publication Moscovitz-Grancher<http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/publication-moscovitz-grancher.html> Activit?s & parutions du quatri?me groupe<http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/activits-parutions-du-quatrime-gro…> Bienvenue sur ce blog dont je vous pr?sente un r?sum? du site principal : http://psyrelationnel.blogspot.com/ *La m?thode* Elle est tout d'abord *pluridisciplinaire*. Elle se fonde sur des connaissances en *psychologie*, en *psychanalyse*, en *psychiatrie*, en * philosophie*, en *ethnologie *et en *sociologie*. Elle repose ?galement sur une exp?rience en milieu *hospitalier*, *scolaire *, des interventions en *entreprise*, de multiples entretiens priv?s et une *auto-analyse* de plus de vingt ans. Elle n?cessite un patient travail de r?flexion, parfois p?rilleux, parfois douloureux; travail toujours dirig?, toujours accompagn?, toujours suivi pas ? pas. Elle suppose ?galement un travail sur le *langage ?crit*. En effet, *s'efforcer de trouver le mot juste est la meilleure fa?on d'?clairer les complexes m?canismes qui gouvernent notre pens?e * ** ** *la maladie d'Alzheimer* analyse gerontologique<http://vermast.blogspot.com/2006/12/analyse-gerontologique.html> psychanalyse & Alzheimer<http://vermast.blogspot.com/2006/11/psychanalyse-alzheimer.html> afin de cerner un d?bat qui je le crois deviendra crucial l'an prochain : Yves Ferroul en r?ponse avec "sujet "toc"<http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/yves-ferroul-en-rponse-avec-sujet-…> sujet "TOC" <http://psychanalyse.blogspot.com/2006/12/sujet-toc.html> Enfin pour remercier Monsieur R.LETHIER roland.lethier at wanadoo.fr - Je me permets donc de vous faire part de ces nouveaut?s, le catalogue EPEL & catalogue : l'une b?vue (2006)?diteur n?23 relatant les travaux de Sollers, Lynda Hart Anne Marie Ringenbach,Martine Renaud, Fran?oise Jandrot, Jean-Claude Dumoncel, Dominique Desanti ainsi que si remarques sur l'"?ros" platonicien de David M.Halperin, que de lectures pour ces f?tes que je vous souhaite pleines de joie. -- Tassigny Frans Sint Fransiscusstraat 25 8400 Ostende BELGIQUE 0496 85 56 82 nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/

1 0

[Lutecium-group] La voie de la liberté
by sirano＠iname.com 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

Tr?s bonne question Surtout quand on NE parle justement PAS la m?me langue et ne partage pas les m?mes dialectes. Un constat ? la fois rassurant et triste : d?un cot? cela enrichie infiniment la pratique (? force de ma?triser les deux langues ? maternelles ? celle du th?rapeute et celle du patient, on passe forcement au m?talangage), d?un autre, l?acad?misme et l?herm?tisme des milieux professionnels reste souvent imp?n?trable pour l?inspiration scientifique venu de l?ext?rieur. On choisit donc la libert? ? faveur de la pratique, par et pour la conscience, la science et la dignit?. Natalia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yann Leroux" To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] La voie de la libert? Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:55:35 +0100 lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. --- Violaine Clement a ?crit : > Il y a effectivement deux questions qui se traversent l'une > l'autre : comment bien dire quelque chose de sa pratique dans le > cadre de l'?cole ou de groupes constitu?s pour cela, et la > question de Yann, qui me para?t plut?t ouverte sur l'ext?rieur : > comment bien dire quelque chose ? l'ext?rieur de ces groupes dans > lesquels on parle, au fond, une m?me langue, avec des dialectes, > certes, dans le malentendu, dans l'?quivoque, mais malgr? tout > avec une certaine possibilit? d'?tre compris. Oui, c'est effectivement un probl?me. Comment en parler ? Comment le transmettre ? Comment rendre compte de ce qui se passe dans une cure. Et c'est un probleme "dedans" comme "dehors" car nous savons tous ce qu'il faut dire pour que les choses se passent bien. Les associations psychanalytiques n'?chappent pas a cela, et toutes ont du mal a faire de la place ? l'inconscient ou m?me a la psychanalyse. Il n'y a qu'a voir les problemes autour de la formation des psychanalystes. Je trouve aussi que les pires adversaires de la psychanalyse sont souvent les psychanalystes, mais je ne propose pas d'aller en croisade. La discussion porte sur ce point : comment ?valuons nous notre travail ? Je sais le travail en supervision et les diff?rents dispositifs. Mais cela ne dit nullement ce qui est ?valu?. Le sais t on ? Peut on le savoir ? Il est important de d?limiter ce que l'on est en droit d'attendre et de savoir d'une psychanalyse. Je ne parle pas en termes de sympt?mes. Je parle en termes de processus conscients et inconscients engag?s dans une cure. -- http://yann.leroux.free.fr [ePsychologie - Le blog] http://www.psyapsy.org [le portail des psychologues francophones] http://www.filiationspsychanalytiques.net [Filiations Psychanalytiques] _______________________________________________ A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org Lutecium-group mailing list Lutecium-group at lutecium.org http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group -- ___________________________________________________ Search for products and services at: http://search.mail.com

1 0

[Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison
by mariadsouza＠terra.com.br 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

et juste pour revenir ? quelque chose qui semble si obscure pour ceux qui veulent l'obscurcir: "une psychanalyse, type ou non, est la cure qu'on attend d'un psychanalyste".

1 0

[Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 25
by d.tabellion＠aliceadsl.fr 21 Dec '06

21 Dec '06

lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org a ?crit : > Send Lutecium-group mailing list submissions to > lutecium-group at lutecium.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lutecium-group-owner at lutecium.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Lutecium-group digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison (kika) > 2. sans le latin, sans le latin, la messe.... (Violaine Clement) > 3. Re: Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison (Yann Leroux) > 4. Re: Re : RE : La voix de la raison (Jean-Paul Kornobis) > 5. Aujourd'hui ? 21 h. Maison des ?crivains "La vie parfaite" > avec M. Cazenave, Jacques Le Brun et Catherine Millot. > (SARMIENTO Gricelda) > 6. Les raisons de la voix (Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:13:38 -0200 > From: "kika" <mariadsouza at terra.com.br> > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison > To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" > <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> > Message-ID: <000501c724a5$a26ffb00$8d00fea9 at all.com.br> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > "En revenant parler ? Ste Anne, ce que j'aurai esp?r?, c'est qu'il y e?t l? > des internes, comme on appelle ?a, qui s'appelaient de mon temps " les > internes des asiles " ; ce sont maintenant " des h?pitaux psychiatriques ", > sans compter le reste. C'est ce public-l? qu'en revenant ? Ste Anne je > visais. J'avais l'espoir que certains d'entre eux se d?rangeraient. Est-ce > que s'il y en a ici - je parle d'internes en exercice - ils me feraient le > plaisir de lever la main ? C'est une ?crasante minorit?, mais enfin, ils me > suffisent tout ? fait." > 4 Novembre 1971, XIX-bis Le savoir du psychanalyste - gaogoa - version rue > CB > > (nous aurions tous ? gagner si les "internes" du monde s'ouvrent vers > d'autres savoirs) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yann Leroux" <yann.leroux at laposte.net> > To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" > <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:22 PM > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison > > > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. > --- > kika a ?crit : > >> et enfin, pour la m?decine qui mutile, pour la technologie qui nous >> > d?truit > >> tandis en nous promettant faussement le paradis sur la terre, et les >> r?ligions qui nous asservissent, qui nous remboursera? >> >> > Bon, ?a soigne, ou pas la psychanalyse ? > > Je vais vous aider : > [ ] Oui > [ ] Non > [ ] R?ponse en ?cran de fum?e > > -- > http://yann.leroux.free.fr [ePsychologie - Le blog] > http://www.psyapsy.org [le portail des psychologues francophones] > http://www.filiationspsychanalytiques.net [Filiations Psychanalytiques] > > > > _______________________________________________ > A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org > Lutecium-group mailing list > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:31:23 +0100 > From: Violaine Clement <violaine.clement at co-perolles.ch> > Subject: [Lutecium-group] sans le latin, sans le latin, la messe.... > To: lutecium <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> > Message-ID: <9122bea744d353e5fea7820f68886b2a at co-perolles.ch> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > La psychanalyse comme une messe, moi j'aime bien. Mais la messe, c'est > ennuyeux, c'est plut?t la r?p?tition de paroles dans une langue qu'on > ne comprend pas, et ?a fait penser ? certains clubs o? on parle > lacanich. > > Dans mon pays, catholique, la messe, ?a fait du bien, on ne sait pas > pourquoi, mais ce qui fait le plus de bien, c'est la confession, et je > trouve que le meilleur moment, ?a reste le paiement, qui me fait penser > ? l'absolution.... > > Qu'en pensez-vous ? > > Violaine Cl?ment > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:35:43 +0100 > From: Yann Leroux <yann.leroux at laposte.net> > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison > To: Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne > <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> > Message-ID: <458A2B3F.4060901 at laposte.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > kika a ?crit : > > > Bon, ?a soigne, ou pas la psychanalyse ? > > Je vais vous aider : > [ ] Oui > [ ] Non > [ X ] R?ponse en ?cran de fum?e > > > >> --- >> j'ai 49 ans, j'ai toujours mon ut?rus, et j'ai d?couvert un auteur br?silien >> qui pensait il y plus de 20 ans que le cancer ?tait une al?rgie ? certaines >> prot?ines, tu vois, ?a ne se soigne pas... ?a se contr?le, et puis ?a se >> comprends... et il y en a d?j? des laboratoires de pointe qui d?veloppent >> des m?dicaments qui op?rent par le m?me principe... mais il y plusieurs >> approches... aux Etats Unis, ils coupent les seins des femmes >> "g?n?tiquement" canc?reuses... >> >> alors, ne t'en fais mon petit mauvais gar?on... il ne faut que se demander >> qu'est-ce que la gu?rison... et il y aura plusieurs r?ponses. et celle de la >> psychanlyse n'en ait pas moi valide, et les tribunaux inquisitorials qui se >> ?l?vent contre elle le prouvent, car sinon, pourquoi la "science" >> ?l?veraient-elle des tribunaux inquisitorials contre la psychanalyse? >> >> et en quoi cel? int?resse ? la psychanalyse? et je crois mauvais petit >> gar?on que ?a n'int?resse en rien, les "psychanalystes" ont d?j? trop ? >> faire, mais elle est appell?e ? ce d?bat, parce que ni la r?ligion ni la >> science sont capables de r?pondre aux questions que les ?tres humains se >> posent et qui se trouvent entre le ciel et la terre. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Yann Leroux" <yann.leroux at laposte.net> >> To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" >> <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:22 PM >> Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison >> >> >> lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. >> Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. >> --- >> kika a ?crit : >> >> >>> et enfin, pour la m?decine qui mutile, pour la technologie qui nous >>> >>> >> d?truit >> >> >>> tandis en nous promettant faussement le paradis sur la terre, et les >>> r?ligions qui nous asservissent, qui nous remboursera? >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Bonjour Violaine, Entre la voix de la raison et la messe, quel rapport? La voix de l'oraison! Denis

1 0

[Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison
by mariadsouza＠terra.com.br 21 Dec '06

21 Dec '06

en postant ce qui se suit, je rappellais l'importance de la contribuition de psychanalyse pour quoique ce soit, soit "science", soit "r?ligion"... bien sur que la r?ligion peut faire du bien, m?me si elle asservie... la m?decine, elle aussi peut faire du bien, m?me quand il coupent le stomach d'un jeune gar?on qui n'arr?te pas de manger... mais la psychanalyse nous permet de voir tout cela et d'y penser... ainsi qu'elle nous permet de penser ? pourquioi Yann essaye de nous confondre... et bien Yann c'est No?l, et c'est stupide comme tout, c'est un truc du march?, de l'ordre du discours capitaliste qui nous propose des objets comme ?tant la solution, la gu?rison du d?sir... tel que d'autres discours dit "scientifiques" et qui nous offrent la gu?rison comme r?sultat... mais gu?rison de quoi? un mal ? la t?te, un disconfort, un trouble, ?a vient d'o?? c'est le corps qui le sent, en sinthome qui s'inscrit et qui inscrit le sujet socialement... ne serait-ce "le trouble" une sublimation, soit, une mani?re de rendre le d?sir socialement acceptable? et ce serait pour cela que "la gu?rison vient de surcro?t"? car il y a un tas de choses ? faire pour arriver ? la gu?rison, et la psychanalyse est en condition d'aider le sujet en ce chemin qu'il doit lui m?me poursuivre pour se faire du bien et non pas se mutiler... quand les jeunes femmes aux 'Etats Unis se laissent couper non pas les cheveux mais les seins sains car quelqu'un avec un savoir d?termin? lui dit qu'elles sont destin?s au cancer, qu'est-ce que c'est cel?? la psychanalyse est en mesure d'aider les gens ? se constituer en tant que sujets. et si les 100 Euros que la soci?t? te paye te fais du mal, car c'est cela que tu nous dis, et bien toutes les ?valuations du monde ne suffiront pas ? t'aider ? surmonter ce malaise dont l'origine est en toi m?me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "kika" <mariadsouza at terra.com.br> To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison > "En revenant parler ? Ste Anne, ce que j'aurai esp?r?, c'est qu'il y e?t l? > des internes, comme on appelle ?a, qui s'appelaient de mon temps " les > internes des asiles " ; ce sont maintenant " des h?pitaux psychiatriques ", > sans compter le reste. C'est ce public-l? qu'en revenant ? Ste Anne je > visais. J'avais l'espoir que certains d'entre eux se d?rangeraient. Est-ce > que s'il y en a ici - je parle d'internes en exercice - ils me feraient le > plaisir de lever la main ? C'est une ?crasante minorit?, mais enfin, ils me > suffisent tout ? fait." > 4 Novembre 1971, XIX-bis Le savoir du psychanalyste - gaogoa - version rue > CB > > (nous aurions tous ? gagner si les "internes" du monde s'ouvrent vers > d'autres savoirs) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yann Leroux" <yann.leroux at laposte.net> > To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" > <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:22 PM > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison > > > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. > --- > kika a ?crit : > > et enfin, pour la m?decine qui mutile, pour la technologie qui nous > d?truit > > tandis en nous promettant faussement le paradis sur la terre, et les > > r?ligions qui nous asservissent, qui nous remboursera? > > > Bon, ?a soigne, ou pas la psychanalyse ? > > Je vais vous aider : > [ ] Oui > [ ] Non > [ ] R?ponse en ?cran de fum?e > > -- > http://yann.leroux.free.fr [ePsychologie - Le blog] > http://www.psyapsy.org [le portail des psychologues francophones] > http://www.filiationspsychanalytiques.net [Filiations Psychanalytiques] > > > > _______________________________________________ > A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org > Lutecium-group mailing list > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group > >

1 0

[Lutecium-group] Les raisons de la voix
by sirano＠iname.com 21 Dec '06

21 Dec '06

Chers amis,Votre col?re me fait rappeler l'ancienne signature de notre coll?gue Guy de Villers, que je ne peux malheureusement pas citer faute d'absence de clavier h?bra?que chez moi. L'auteur de ce fameux article (qui vous a malgr? tout boulevers? en attendant ainsi son but) n'a-t-il pas plut?t rat? sa psychanalyse pour acc?der ? un tel point d'effront?ment? Cela pose une question sur la confiance que nous accordons ? notre analyste, celle que nous accordent nos patients et celle que nous accordons ? nos coll?gues. Personnellement, durant toutes les ann?es de ma pratique j'ai eu toujours des bons contacts avec les psychiatres hospitaliers, les "neuroscientifiques" et peut ?tre mois ?labor?s avec psychologues sociales. Nous le savons tous tr?s bien - notre m?thode th?rapeutique d?pends surtout des r?sultats que nous avons tir? de notre propre analyse, de notre satisfaction professionnelle, de notre recherche permanente, de notre capacit? de partager le savoir. Par contre, il n'est pas facile de s'avouer les affinit?s coll?giales et le respect approuv? pour un autre professionnel m?me si celui-l? fait partie d'une autre ?cole ou ontologie ou m?thodologie. Cela implique une certaine maturit? int?rieure, n'est-ce pas? Pourquoi donc une telle alacrit? de confrontation?Je serai tr?s reconnaissante ? Guy de Villers de nous remettre son beaux logo et en attendant je vous souhaite ? toutes et ? tous les plus merveilleux surprises neigeux que cette f?te d'enfance puisse vous apporter, les souvenirs doux et lumineux, les cadeaux intelligentes et partag?s, les c?lins d'Amour et les belles ?toiles. Natalia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emmanuel Bing" To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" Subject: [Lutecium-group] Re : Re : RE : La voix de la raison Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:38:36 +0100 lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. --- Juste pour dire tout le d?go?t que m'inspire ce texte. EB Le 20/12/06 21:26, ? Yann Leroux ? a ?crit : > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. > --- > *Les psychanalystes auraient-ils peur de la confrontation scientifique ?* > > R?ponse d'un comportementaliste ? la tribune de Steven Wainrib > > > Le point de vue du docteur Steven Wainrib, m?decin qui a tout oubli? de ses > ?tudes scientifiques (les pages D?bats du Monde du 6 d?cembre), est tr?s > repr?sentatif de la fa?on d'agir des psychanalystes : non pas r?fl?chir et > argumenter, en comparant deux m?thodes th?rapeutiques, mais > insulter ceux qui > proposent de soigner en dehors de la psychanalyse, les caricaturer en " > adversaires " - pourquoi pas des alli?s pour le bien > des patients ? -, les pr?senter comme de connivence ainsi que des > malfaiteurs > (" notre ?quipe " !), dans le but d'agir brutalement (" association muscl?e > "), sans respect des personnes (" raboter sauvagement "). > > Et que penser de la liste horrifique des mots techniques complaisamment > ?num?r?s ("capsulotomie ant?rieure, etc. ") sinon qu'elle vise ? effrayer, > alors que ce sont les termes techniques de l'anatomie > c?r?brale, banals pour > les sp?cialistes (mais un psychiatre analyste s'est-il donn? la peine de > conna?tre le cerveau ?). > > Faut-il pr?f?rer ? ce vocabulaire le langage si humain de la psychanalyse, > comme cette explication de l'innocente crampe musculaire entra?nant le > vaginisme par l'in?narrable Fran?oise Dolto : " Chez les > vaginiques, on retrouve > toujours le fantasme pr?coce du viol ?visc?rateur par la m?re, alors que la > petite fille... d?sire le viol trucidant par le p?re " (Sexualit? f?minine : > libido, ?rotisme et frigidit?, chapitre III) ? Voil? qui doit s?rement aider > une jeune femme dans la " reconnaissance profonde de son ?tre " et lui > permettre des rapports sexuels ?panouissants ! Tout cela serait simplement > comique s'il n'y avait pas en jeu la souffrance de centaines de milliers de > patients en France, et celle de leur famille. D'ailleurs, depuis 1900, il n'y > a aucun article, dans toute la litt?rature ondiale, apportant la preuve > qu'une m?thode psychanalytique ait gu?ri quiconque. Alors que > des milliers de > Fran?ais ont une vie ?quilibr?e apr?s une prise en charge comportementale, > avec ou sans m?dicaments. Car la prise de m?dicaments n'est pas une preuve > d'?chec de la th?rapie comportementale ! Elle est, pour un > vrai scientifique, la prise en compte d'une r?alit? objective, compl?mentaire > de l'action comportementale : ? la base du trouble obsessionnel il y a une > pathologie c?r?brale que certains produits peuvent affaiblir ou ?liminer. > > Il n'y a que les psychanalystes pour refuser cette dualit? et croire qu'un > ?tre humain est ?mu, se souvient, raisonne, etc. avec une pens?e > ?th?r?e, sans > support organique : comme si le mauvais ?tat de marche du cerveau n'avait > aucun impact sur le comportement ! Les comportementalistes sont des > scientifiques. Ils ne cherchent pas ? " prendre le pouvoir ", ils proposent > une th?rapie, fruit de leur recherche th?orique et appliqu?e, afin de mieux > soigner les patients. Ils ne veulent pas faire la guerre aux > psychanalystes en > particulier. Ils agissent comme ont toujours agi les scientifiques : on > propose une > nouvelle th?orie, on en tire les cons?quences pratiques. Si ces cons?quences > sont plus int?ressantes que celles des th?ories pr?c?dentes, on adopte la > th?orie jusqu'? nouvel examen. Sinon, on cherche dans une autre direction. > > La confrontation scientifique n'est pas une guerre, et les > adversaires d'une > nouvelle th?orie contribuent par leurs critiques ? son ?laboration ou ? son > ?limination. Il n'y a que la psychanalyse qui, depuis Freud, crie au loup ? > chaque fois que l'on propose une autre explication des faits psychiques que > la sienne : pour la premi?re fois dans l'histoire de l'humanit? une > connaissance serait d?finitive, et tout ce que l'on a d?couvert apr?s sa > proclamation ne la concernerait pas ! > > Pour finir, je suppose que le docteur Wainrib est respectueux de > ses patients > et les informe, avant toute prise en charge, qu'il est en totale > contradiction avec son code de d?ontologie, qui lui impose > d'assurer des soins > " fond?s sur les donn?es acquises de la science " (titre II, article 32), > mais qu'il agit ainsi par conviction profonde. > Curieusement, des tribunaux am?ricains ont condamn? ? de lourdes > amendes des > psychiatres ayant trait? par psychanalyse et qui n'ont pas pu apporter la > preuve du fondement scientifique de cette th?rapie. > > Je conseillerais bien volontiers aux patients des m?decins pratiquant la > psychanalyse de leur intenter des proc?s pour faute > professionnelle, les juges > fran?ais n'?tant a priori pas plus ?mus que les Am?ricains par > les convictions > profondes dans ces circonstances. Et peut-?tre que par l'argent on fera > redescendre sur terre les psychanalystes, qui en ont d?coll? > depuis plus d'un > si?cle. > > *Yves Ferroul > M?decin, ma?tre de conf?rences ? l'universit? de Lille > * > > _______________________________________________ > A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org > Lutecium-group mailing list > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group > > -- Emmanuel Bing ? Paris : RdC. - droite 10 rue Alasseur 75015 Paris 01 64 07 75 57 dans la Brie : La grange aux d?mes 1 rue du 11 novembre 77540 Voinsles (Rozay en Brie) 01 64 07 75 57 http://www.scytale.fr http://www.atelier-bing.com http://www.psychanalyse-77.com _______________________________________________ A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org Lutecium-group mailing list Lutecium-group at lutecium.org http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group -- ___________________________________________________ Search for products and services at: http://search.mail.com

1 0