January 2007 - Topologos

[Lutecium-group] Suppression de la liste de diffusion
by ghislain.guillochon＠wanadoo.fr 05 Jan '07

05 Jan '07

Pourriez vous rayer mon adresse mail de la liste de diffusion de lutecium-group : ghislain.guillochon at wanadoo.fr Merci

2 1

[Lutecium-group] Miller, Notre sujet supposé savoir
by sirano＠iname.com 05 Jan '07

05 Jan '07

en parlant de la contribution de J-A Miller elle bien plus vaste, il suffit de venir ? son toujours impressionnant s?minaire de mercredi aux "Arts et M?tiers" Cordialamant,Natalia ----- Original Message ----- From: kika To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Miller, Notre sujet suppos? savoir Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:39:19 -0200 lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. --- sinc?rement Violaine, je l'ai ?crit parce que c'est ce que je pense au sujet de ce que j'ai pu lire, soit des s?minaires "systematis?s" voire "assainis" par le groupe qui a eu les moyens d'avoir acc?s au materiaux que plus r?cemment devient publique. c'est mon opinion personnelle. d'ailleurs, une question, c'est Miller qui accompagne Lacan ? Louvain? c'est lui que "arrange" sa "cravate" et que Lacan, pour que les gens puissent l'?couter, la d?s-arrange? si oui, je crois que c'est l'image de ce que j'ai dit. je n'ai fait que la traduire en mots: pour "?couter" Lacan il faut d?s-arranger ou d?ranger. quant ? la contribution de Miller, elle est l?. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Violaine Clement" To: "lutecium" Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:23 PM Subject: [Lutecium-group] Miller, Notre sujet suppos? savoir lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. --- Ch?re Kika, Je ne sais pas pourquoi vous ?crivez ? propos de Lacan "que Miller bien s?r a fait le desservice de rendre completement obscur pour ?tre le seul ? le comprendre", mais puisque vous vous demandez si sur cette liste il y a des gens qui lisent Lacan, je me permets de vous demander si vous lisez Miller. Dans la lettre mensuelle 254 de l'?cole de la Cause Freudienne qui vient de para?tre, dans l'article Notre sujet suppos? savoir, il ?crit :" Quand elle donne sa pleine puissance, la psychanalyse fait, pour un sujet, vaciller tous les semblants et organise leur d?flation m?thodique, y compris le semblant dont elle-m?me proc?de comme sujet suppos? savoir, puisque ce sujet suppos? savoir. ? la fin d'une analyse, apr?s avoir servi, vient ? s'?vanouir. Ce qui lib?re un signe d'ouverture, peut-?tre d'intensivit? ou de cr?ativit?, qui est ? rebours du festin de Balthazar. Ce qui ?merge au mieux, c'est un signe qui dit :"Tout n'est pas ?crit." Le festin de Balthazar, voil? l'id?e folle de l'?valuation ? tout prix, "ce savoir chiffr? dont nous sommes assaillis". Et assailli, Jacques-Alain Miller l'est, comme il le raconte, par ceux qui lui demandent "les textes l?gislatifs concernant la psychanalyse". Et il r?siste, il est entr? en guerre, lui aussi, contre ceux qui, parmi les analystes eux-m?mes essaient de rep?rer l'inconscient dans les traces neuronales. Cela me fait penser ? ce qui rapportait un jour Philippe La Sagna, ? propos des IRM : autrefois, disait-il, on savait que quelqu'un pensait lorsqu'on le voyait plisser le front. Aujourd'hui, on voit s'allumer des lumi?res dans son cerveau et on sait donc qu'il pense.... Belle avanc?e.... Alors plut?t que de tirer dans le dos de celui qui ose occuper cette position et qui en a les moyens, pourquoi pas le lire bien, voire le suivre lorsqu'il termine son texte ainsi : " Il nous revient, ce sujet suppos? savoir, de l'assumer, de le prot?ger, de le d?velopper, et cela ne va pas sans l'aimer un peu." Bien ? vous, Violaine _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 6 rue de Savoie 75006 Paris 01 44 41 01 43 06 80 10 41 99 -- Low Prices, Wide Selection of Gas Masks Everyday low price guarantee. We offer special police discounts and an extremely wide selection of gas masks, filters and huge selection of preparedness gear. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=24e08df2353d2e6cb9bae3a…

2 1

[Lutecium-group] RE : Bonne année aux 679!
by sirano＠iname.com 05 Jan '07

05 Jan '07

400 heures th?oriques + 4 mois d'un stage pratique... C'est tout de m?me tr?s tr?s peu... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Paul Kornobis" To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] RE : Bonne ann?e aux 679! Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:58:36 +0100 lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. --- Tous mes voeux ?galement pour l'ann?e 2007, merci ?galement pour les recherches qui y sont effectu?es au nom de la psychanalyse dont l'avenir n'est h?las pas assur? si on en juge par les derniers avatars du projet de d?cret de l'article 52. Il faut donc rester en 2007, plus que jamais vigilent ? ce qui se passera concernant ce d?cret car les futurs psychanalystes risquent de ne plus pouvoir exercer librement. Cordial Jean-Paul Kornobis PS Au cas ou, je vous joins un copier-coller du texte de JAM publi? sur le site Oedipe en d?cembre 2006. ----------------------------------------- "La solidarit? psy a-t-elle fait son temps? Envoy? par: JAM (---.clients.easynet.fr) Date: Sat 23 December 2006 19:58:10 *** On me fait remarquer que les termes du "compromis du 8 d?cembre" ne sont pas universellement connus. Voici ce que j'en ai ?crit le 11 d?cembre, dans une lettre qui figure sur le fil "Une alerte". *** "Vous saurez que le directeur de cabinet du ministre de la Sant? m'a invit? ? le rencontrer vendredi dernier le 8 d?cembre pour m'exposer l'?tat des discussions sur le fameux d?cret et obtenir mon accord. Voici les termes du compromis qui s'est d?gag? : 1 - Reconnaissance possible des formations dispens?es par les associations: succ?s. La phrase supprim?e est r?tablie: "Cette formation peut ?tre confi?e ? l'Universit? ou ? des organismes passant convention avec l'Universit?". 2 - Nombre d'heures exig?es dans la nouvelle formation standard:moyen. Au lieu de 500 h x 2, mon interlocuteur s'est dit pr?t ? descendre ? 400 h th?oriques, tout en conservant la formulation d'avril: "Ce cahier des charges doit notamment pr?voir une formation th?orique d'une dur?e de 400 heures et un stage pratique d'une dur?e minimale de quatre mois, fractionnable en tant que de besoin, dans un ?tablissement de sant? ou un ?tablissement m?dico-social accueillant des patients atteints de pathologies psychiques". 3 - Clause dite ? du grand-p?re ? : succ?s. Elle serait r?tablie pour "les professionnels justifiant au moins de trois (et non plus cinq) ann?es d'exp?rience, en qualit? de psychoth?rapeute, ? la date de publication du pr?sent d?cret". Les documents seraient ? envoyer ? une commission r?gionale compos?e de personnalit?s qualifi?es, choisies par le pr?fet, avec recours possible devant une commission nationale form?e par le Ministre." ***** Reste pour 2007 l'?preuve du Conseil d'Etat. L'ECF n'a pas constitu? d'avocats. Les f?d?rations de psychoth?rapeutes, si. De deux choses l'une. Si ces avocats argumentent en faveur des psychoth?rapeutes, pour les voir gagner le m?me avantage que les analystes (dispense de formation standard, voire qualit? de membre de droit), ils seront dans leur r?le. En revanche, s'ils recevaientt instruction d'argumenter contre les psychanalystes, pour les voir perdre leur d?j? maigre avantage, ce serait inamical, voire hostile. Une solidarit?, non pas conceptuelle ni pratique, mais politico-sociale, ou soci?tale, a ?t? maintenue vaille que vaille dans la "Coordination psy" depuis trois ans. Y r?sisterait-elle? C'est un petit probl?me dont je puis poser les termes, mais dont je ne saurais donner la solution. Celle-ci importe pourtant, car les ?pisodes ? suivre ne manqueront pas: constitution des commissions, conventionnements universitaires (avec opposition acharn?e de nos amis TCC comme psychopathologues), etc. Pour terminer, je me demande comment je me retrouve embarqu? dans cette histoire interminable (et, sous certains aspects, minable). C'est pour avoir dit non ? Accoyer, et avoir voulu ?tre cons?quent avec ce non (n'en d?plaise au cher Roland Lebret). Il ne fallait pas dire A, comme dit Jacques le Fataliste. La solidarit? psy a-t-elle fait son temps? Envoy? par: JAM (---.clients.easynet.fr) Date: Sat 23 December 2006 19:58:10 On me fait remarquer que les termes du "compromis du 8 d?cembre" ne sont pas universellement connus. Voici ce que j'en ai ?crit le 11 d?cembre, dans une lettre qui figure sur le fil "Une alerte". *** "Vous saurez que le directeur de cabinet du ministre de la Sant? m'a invit? ? le rencontrer vendredi dernier le 8 d?cembre pour m'exposer l'?tat des discussions sur le fameux d?cret et obtenir mon accord. Voici les termes du compromis qui s'est d?gag? : 1 - Reconnaissance possible des formations dispens?es par les associations: succ?s. La phrase supprim?e est r?tablie: "Cette formation peut ?tre confi?e ? l'Universit? ou ? des organismes passant convention avec l'Universit?". 2 - Nombre d'heures exig?es dans la nouvelle formation standard:moyen. Au lieu de 500 h x 2, mon interlocuteur s'est dit pr?t ? descendre ? 400 h th?oriques, tout en conservant la formulation d'avril: "Ce cahier des charges doit notamment pr?voir une formation th?orique d'une dur?e de 400 heures et un stage pratique d'une dur?e minimale de quatre mois, fractionnable en tant que de besoin, dans un ?tablissement de sant? ou un ?tablissement m?dico-social accueillant des patients atteints de pathologies psychiques". 3 - Clause dite ? du grand-p?re ? : succ?s. Elle serait r?tablie pour "les professionnels justifiant au moins de trois (et non plus cinq) ann?es d'exp?rience, en qualit? de psychoth?rapeute, ? la date de publication du pr?sent d?cret". Les documents seraient ? envoyer ? une commission r?gionale compos?e de personnalit?s qualifi?es, choisies par le pr?fet, avec recours possible devant une commission nationale form?e par le Ministre." ***** Reste pour 2007 l'?preuve du Conseil d'Etat. L'ECF n'a pas constitu? d'avocats. Les f?d?rations de psychoth?rapeutes, si. De deux choses l'une. Si ces avocats argumentent en faveur des psychoth?rapeutes, pour les voir gagner le m?me avantage que les analystes (dispense de formation standard, voire qualit? de membre de droit), ils seront dans leur r?le. En revanche, s'ils recevaientt instruction d'argumenter contre les psychanalystes, pour les voir perdre leur d?j? maigre avantage, ce serait inamical, voire hostile. Une solidarit?, non pas conceptuelle ni pratique, mais politico-sociale, ou soci?tale, a ?t? maintenue vaille que vaille dans la "Coordination psy" depuis trois ans. Y r?sisterait-elle? C'est un petit probl?me dont je puis poser les termes, mais dont je ne saurais donner la solution. Celle-ci importe pourtant, car les ?pisodes ? suivre ne manqueront pas: constitution des commissions, conventionnements universitaires (avec opposition acharn?e de nos amis TCC comme psychopathologues), etc. Pour terminer, je me demande comment je me retrouve embarqu? dans cette histoire interminable (et, sous certains aspects, minable). C'est pour avoir dit non ? Accoyer, et avoir voulu ?tre cons?quent avec ce non (n'en d?plaise au cher Roland Lebret). Il ne fallait pas dire A, comme dit Jacques le Fataliste. " ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liliane Fainsilber" To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] RE : Bonne ann?e aux 679! lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. --- Merci ? tous pour ces messages de bonne ann?e de travail qui font chaud au coeur. Je suis comme Suzanne et Guy, et d'autres, ce qui se passe sur cette liste, entre autres, est stimulant pour nos respectives cogitations autour de notre passion commune, la psychanalyse. Cette ann?e notamment sans Jean-Paul je n'aurais pas fait la connaissance livresque de cette incroyable bonne femme Marcela Iacub avec qui j'ai pass? de tr?s bons moments. mais enfin il y a toujours notre cher Lacan et notre non moins cher Freud qui sont toujours pour nous, malgr? leur absence, des hommes de bonne compagnie. Il y a maintenant si lontemps qu'il n'est plus de ce monde, je parle de Lacan, et il m'arrive encore pourtant de r?ver de lui. Evidemment par rapport aux propos ?chang?s, je fais, dans ces r?ves, les demandes et les r?ponses. Au moins je suis s?re qu'il me donnera raison : -) Amicalement. Liliane. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Low Prices, Wide Selection of Gas Masks Everyday low price guarantee. We offer special police discounts and an extremely wide selection of gas masks, filters and huge selection of preparedness gear. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=24e08df2353d2e6cb9bae3a…

2 1

[Lutecium-group] La loi du Père
by sirano＠iname.com 05 Jan '07

05 Jan '07

Bonsoir Jean-Fran?ois Doucet, Cela caract?rise aussi le monde psychanalytique britannique (un peu moins irlandais), ce que ne parle qu'? sa faveur. Souvent ?a nous manques n'est-ce pas? Le r?le de la personnalit? dans l'histoire (mouvement) fran?ais ?tant incontestable, cette tendance oblige in?vitablement l'association de l'id?e directement avec son auteur et tout comme dans la relation semblable "parent c?libataire - enfant unique" risque par cons?quence d'emp?cher sa libre circulation. L'oeuvre, arrivera-t-il ? la maturit? en d?passant la d?pendance de la bonne-mauvaise m?re dans ces conditions? Pour finalement accepter le p?re et vivre selon ces propres choix... Bien cordialement,Natalia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-francois Doucet" To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Miller , Notre sujet suppos? savoir Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:56:15 +0100 (CET) lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. --- En Norv?ge, en effet, les conf?renciers sont plus centr?s sur la discipline qu' ils traitent et moins " personnels ". Bien cordialement Jean-francois Doucet > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. > --- > J'?tais dans la salle o? Lacan a donn? son enseignement en 1972 ? Louvain. > Si je me souviens bien, celui qui installe le micro-cravate est le professeur Jacques Schotte. C'est lui qui a pr?sent? bri?vement Lacan au public de Louvain. Je vais revoir la video. >> http://parolesdesjours.free.fr/lacan.htm< > > > > Le 3/01/07 17:39, ? kika ? a ?crit : > >> c'est Miller qui accompagne Lacan ? Louvain? c'est >> lui que "arrange" sa "cravate" et que Lacan, pour que les gens puissent l'?couter, la d?s-arrange? > > Guy de Villers Grand-Champs > Cours de Valduc, 13 > B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve > BELGIQUE > T?l. : +32 10 45 47 89 > Fax : +32 10 45 69 74 > Courriel : Guy.de.Villers at psp.ucl.ac.be > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Jean-francois Doucet Novum corpus : http://www.jf-doucet.com/ Web site : http://www.jf-doucet.com/approche/ Webgroup :http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideasy/ Weblog : http://www.20six.fr/Pensees-fugitives _______________________________________________ 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 -- Low Prices, Wide Selection of Gas Masks Everyday low price guarantee. We offer special police discounts and an extremely wide selection of gas masks, filters and huge selection of preparedness gear. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=24e08df2353d2e6cb9bae3a…

1 0

[Lutecium-group] FW: POUR DIDIER POTIN-a propos de la polémologie
by bdf＠deflorence.com 05 Jan '07

05 Jan '07

Message pour Didier Potin: Cf ci-dessous. Peut ?tre lui r?pondre en priv?, vu que cette personne n'est pas inscrite sur la liste. === BdF www.deflorence.com www.myspace.com/jackandbruno === ________________________________ From: arthur.ag.guerin [mailto:arthur.ag.guerin at orange.fr] Sent: 05 January, 2007 10:56 To: help-me at lutecium.org Subject: a propos de la pol?mologie bonjour ma question va surement paraitre d?plac? car j'ai crois bien qu'elle n'a pas de rapport avec votre groupe de travail enfin bon... je voudrais demander a didier potin si il a une id?e vers quoi se tourner pour faire des ?tudes en pol?mologie. j'ai 17 ans et aucune id?e de carri?re voila, si c'etait d?plac?, excusez moi de vous avoir d?rang?

1 0

[Lutecium-group] Tous mes voeux pour 2007
by bing＠club-internet.fr 04 Jan '07

04 Jan '07

Tous mes v?ux pour cette ann?e 2007 ! -- 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

3 2

[Lutecium-group] arrachée à la guerre par une psychanalyse avec Lacan
by frans.tassigny＠gmail.com 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

Une femme raconte la guerre de son p?re. Elle l'appelle Tiss?gre, rien d'autre. Tiss?gre est m?decin (sant? navale), ? Shanghai, entre 1936 et 1939. Il d?barque ? Marseille en 1942, refuse la r?sistance si elle se r?sume ? des actes de terrorisme. Afin de se battre, il passe la fronti?re, ?choue en prison ? Pampelune. Apr?s l'?vocation somptueuse et d?cadente de la Chine, o? il s'?prend d'une Russe, o? il recueille le dernier soupir du dernier ministre de l'imp?ratrice Ts'heu-Hi, sonne l'heure des ?preuves, ?clat noir du froid, de la faim, de la brutalit?, avant l'odyss?e en Afrique du Nord. *Apr?s Shanghai *tresse un second r?cit au premier : la guerre d'une femme contre son p?re. Soir apr?s soir, *?assis au bord du lit?, *sc?ne envo?tante comme un cauchemar, Tiss?gre entra?ne sa fille au fond ses souvenirs. *?Je n'?tais pas celle qu'il aurait voulu?, *dit l'enfant devenue femme, arrach?e ? la guerre par une psychanalyse avec Lacan. De sorte que l'intimit? la plus myst?rieuse se marie aux aventures historiques du soldat. c'est donc bien un cas cordial ft -- Tassigny Frans Sint Fransiscusstraat 25 8400 Ostende BELGIQUE 0496 85 56 82 nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/

1 0

[Lutecium-group] Un cas traité par Lacan
by frans.tassigny＠gmail.com 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

? Enferm?s et libres ? Article publi? le 15 D?cembre 2006 Par Ren? de Ceccatty Source : LE MONDE DES LIVRES Taille de l'article : 458 mots *Extrait* : Tout commence, dit Judith Brouste, en 1936, bien avant sa naissance. Cela commence pour qui ? Pour elle ? Oui, pour la femme qu'elle est devenue, mais ? travers un ?tre qui vient de mourir et qui a laiss? des carnets : son p?re, m?decin ? Shangha? pendant trois ans, de 1936 ? 1939. Le r?cit de Judith Brouste a la violence directe de tous ses livres, qu'ils soient inspir?s par la maladie, la passion ou le silence. Elle affronte ici la vie ?nigmatique de son p?re, mais aussi l'amour qu'elle lui a inspir? et qui l'a orient?e vers l'?criture. On pourrait dire que tout commence avec la mort du p?re, mais ce serait mal comprendre ce livre, ?crit avec une formidable ?nergie vitale. Je n'ai pas l'article en entier mais il est stipul? que Lacan avait trait? le premier ce cas ? Pouvez vous me renseigner ? ft -- Tassigny Frans Sint Fransiscusstraat 25 8400 Ostende BELGIQUE 0496 85 56 82 nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/

2 1

[Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 41
by d.tabellion＠aliceadsl.fr 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

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: Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 38 > (aline.dubois-dugrenot) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:37:19 +0100 > From: "aline\.dubois-dugrenot" <aline.dubois-dugrenot at laposte.net> > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 38 > To: "lutecium-group" <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> > Message-ID: <JB1427$54CCB3FF7B0B4299BBC2735860537B5D at laposte.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Cher M. Tassigny, > Nous sommes sensibles ? vos efforts pour ?largir nos vues ?triqu?es sur la psychanalyse et donner enfin ? notre pratique une v?ritable envergure moderne. Mais nous sommes plusieurs ? penser que l'?nergie que vous d?ployez serait mieux accueillie sur une autre liste de discussion. Pourriez-vous prendre cette demande en consid?ration ? > Avec nos remerciements anticip?s et cordiaux, > > Aline Dubois-Dugrenot > > > > > >> lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. >> Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. >> --- >> Bonsoir, >> >> je me permets de vous rappeler mon objectif : >> >> >> Le Coll?ge d'Analyse La?que a pour vocation ? la fois la mise en place d'un >> outil de travail pour les analystes (et non-analystes) en formation et le >> retour ? la pratique et aux interrogations n?es de cette pratique pour tous >> les praticiens de l 'analyse, dont la formation n'est d'ailleurs jamais >> achev?e. Source : http://users.swing.be/sw271551/accueil.html >> >> ainsi que mon manifeste : >> >> Ne pr?tendons plus ? la neutralit?, mais tenons compte de l'efficace >> psychanalytique et de sa r?sistance, de ses sp?culations et stratag?mes, >> interpellons de fa?on critique, ouvrons des br?ches : c'est oeuvrer ? la >> psychanalyse . >> >> Faut-il encore soumettre le discours psychanalytique ? la rigueur de la >> preuve, aux cha?nes de la cons?quence, aux contraintes internes du >> collectif ? Faut-il toujours articuler, et, surtout, ne plus ignorer ce que >> certains voudraient laisser tomber ou r?duire sous les dogmes de diverses >> chapelles ? Faut-il enfin d?terminer la sp?cificit? de l'apr?s-coup >> psychanalytique et de ce qu'elle arraisonne ? >> >> Que propose-t-on ? la psychanalyse alors que nous vivons dans un espace >> pluridisciplinaire, global o? toutes les valeurs pr?fabriqu?es normalisent >> banalisent l'?tre ? O? des revues, articles, de tout poil, semblent, plus >> qu'informer, nous rendre un amalgame de savoirs qui donnent une impression >> de fadeur, lorsque rivalisant de diagrammes abscons, ils font la statistique >> de leur propre m?diocrit? telle un "semblant" juste bon ? d?composer, >> fragmenter, un tout qui ne sera donc jamais compris exhaustivement. >> >> Jamais l'enseignement de la psychanalyse n'a fait de la psychanalyse une >> recherche "limit?e corporativement en en une weltanschaung r?serv?e aux >> seuls initi?s". Initi?s de l'h?ritage freudien, lacanien, etc. >> >> Tous les membres du collectif, responsables, intervenants, contribuent ? >> ?lever la psychanalyse en un espace sp?culatif, telle une recherche >> fondamentale. On n'y apprend ni des syst?mes, ni des cultes, on y re?oit un >> ?veil de la pens?e d?passant les limites de la psychanalyse pure pour se >> tourner vers l'ethnologie ? l'exemple de Frazer ou de Malinowski et dans ce >> pluralisme se d?gagent des id?es non-dirigistes, des non-certitudes en >> quelque sorte. >> >> Jamais cette recherche ne prendra matrice dans une quelconque corporation, >> guilde, d?fendant ses droits et privil?ges plut?t que la pertinence de ses >> doutes. Cet enseignement ne se d?veloppera pas ? l'encontre d'autres ?coles. >> Telle serait la seule fa?on de renouer avec la pens?e freudienne. Renouer >> avec ces passeurs ne consiste pas ? enseigner la psychanalyse, ni m?me ? >> pr?tendre ? r?inventer la psychanalyse, mais ? penser, r?fl?chir, ? un >> ?l?ment m?me irrationnel au collectif, quitte ? d?construire pour ensuite >> mieux reb?tir, ce qui est vrai pour un est diff?rent pour l'autre. >> >> Bien s?r, c'est l'?tude des textes qui sera la pierre angulaire du "Comment >> savoir poser un probl?me" et ? lui donner une solution argument?e, >> raisonn?e, en ?vitant toutefois d'?tre trop conceptuelle. >> >> Que proposera-t-on ? ces enseignants ? Avant tout une m?thode car cet >> enseignement n'est pas une entreprise de formation o? le collectif >> accouchera d'apprentis sorciers. >> >> Le professeur de psychanalyse commencera la lecture d'une oeuvre freudienne. >> Mais renouer avec l'h?ritage freudien ne reviendra pas ? se prendre soi-m?me >> pour cette figure originaire de la pens?e psychanalytique, mais ? devenir ce >> passeur d'id?es consistant ? comprendre et ? faire comprendre leur travers?e >> ? ce si?cle tumultueux. >> >> Vous voyez que je ne cache strictement rien (Kika) et que bien souvent c'est >> gr?ce ? une recherche quotidienne que j'essaie de pr?senter au groupe >> "Lut?cium" des ?l?ments quelque fois issus de ruptures de divers groupes ou >> originaux et in?dits et cela affin d'enrichir un d?bat qui ? mon humble >> avis doit d?passer le cadre de mon espace relationnel et professionnel. Je >> crois qu'un lieu de parole peut ?tre ?galement fertile si il est le >> compl?ment d'une cure, que des questions des interrogations laiss?es >> ouvertes lors de la dite cure doivent trouver une ?coute sur cette liste. >> >> cordial >> ft >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 28/12/06, lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org < >> 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: Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36 >>> (Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:41:30 -0500 >>> From: "Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou" <sirano at iname.com> >>> Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36 >>> To: maldoro at ifrance.com, "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse >>> lacanienne" <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> >>> Message-ID: <20061228094130.E266B1158CD at ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> Cher Frans, >>> >>> Avec tout mon respect pour les engag?s r?unis par la m?me conviction, je >>> me m?fie des unions n?es ? partir de l?opposition aux autres unions. Ca >>> risque toujours de d?gringoler d?une mani?re ? la Orwell. Il n?est pas >>> pour rien que les individus se regroupent : ? je me trouve une famille >>> d?adoption car la mienne m?a rejet?e. ? Pourvu qu?on continue de b?tir >>> les murs et prot?ger ? tout prix son herm?tisme, on ne sortira jamais de >>> cette angoisse li?e du traumatisme de viol, et cela influence, d?apr?s >>> mes observations ? l?ext?rieur de mon cabinet, consid?rablement la >>> qualit? de la pratique clinique. Nous n?avons pas besoin de faire la >>> guerre pour profiter de nos d?couverts respectifs. Par exemple, c?est >>> connu pour beaucoup d?entre nous que la plupart des TCC n?apportent que >>> l?effet temporaire, ce qui n?emp?che pas de leur r?server une belle place >>> de r?ussite dans certains cas. Ce n?est pas un secret non plus que la >>> psychanalyse, elle aussi, conna?t des ?checs, ce qui n?enl?ve pas la >>> moindre goutte de joie dans les cas contraires. Personnellement, les >>> discussions avec les neurologues, biochimistes et psychiatres >>> investissent ?norm?ment dans mes r?flexions professionnelles, et vis >>> versa, selon eux. La psychanalyse personnelle bien aboutie doit justement >>> permettre, ? mon sens, de se d?barrasser d?hyper protection que procure >>> la position d?un ? proph?te de sa patrie. ? >>> >>> Par contre, si votre pratique en profite ? tant mieux, et tout cela n?a >>> aucune importance J >>> >>> Cordialement, >>> >>> Natalia >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Frans Tassigny" >>> To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org >>> Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36 >>> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:50:41 +0100 >>> >>> >>> lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. >>> Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. >>> --- >>> ch?re amie, >>> >>> Vous me me r?pondez pas sur le fond de mon texte mais vous >>> l'interpr?tez >>> comme si je menait cette qu?te en solitaire, s?rement pas, je me fais >>> au >>> contraire l'?cho d'une multitude d'analysants, il y a bel et bien une >>> commande sociale pour une psychanalyse plurielle hors des castes >>> pr??tablies, c'est d'ailleurs le succ?s des TTC( au d?triment de la >>> psychanalyse ferm?e..), >>> >>> Voici un exemple concret d'avanc?es plurielles : >>> >>> * >>> >>> UNEFPE est une association loi 1901 d'analysants accomplissant leur >>> cure >>> avec un m?me analyste. En exp?rience depuis 1985 elle compl?te le >>> concept du >>> transfert avec l'?l?ment de son rassemblement en commun. Elle marque >>> dans >>> l'histoire de la psychanalyse la phase d'?volution de la m?thode >>> freudienne >>> qui int?gre la psychologie collective >>> >>> UNE Fonction Psychanalytique, Association dite UNEFPE, apr?s avoir >>> form? la >>> technique de psychanalyse plurielle et portant au service des groupes >>> le >>> fruit des travaux poursuivis depuis Freud sur le psychisme, >>> pr?sentera son >>> activit? au Forum R?gional des Associations ? Lyon les 14, 15 & 16 >>> Janvier >>> 1989. Elle intitule sa manifestation: >>> >>> vou pouvez y lire la suite sur : >>> >>> http://nfrance.com/~eq12866/miroir/2004/200400605154100_UNEFPE_PLurielANaly… >>> >>> >>> cordial >>> ft >>> * >>> Le 26/12/06, lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org < >>> 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. fake (jp.bienvenu at wanadoo.fr) >>> > 2. Re: Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 34 >>> > (Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou) >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> > Message: 1 >>> > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:47:59 -0300 >>> > From: jp.bienvenu at wanadoo.fr >>> > Subject: [Lutecium-group] fake >>> > To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org >>> > Message-ID: >>> > >>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> > >>> > something is going wrong >>> > >>> > ------------------------------ >>> > >>> > Message: 2 >>> > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:39:13 -0500 >>> > From: "Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou" >>> > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue >>> 34 >>> > To: maldoro at ifrance.com, "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse >>> > lacanienne" >>> > Message-ID: <20061226143913.B2C091F50B1 at ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com> >>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > A very inspiring speech, Frans, thank you for it.? >>> > >>> > Une des particularit?s de cette attirance des textes de Lacan en >>> Anglais >>> > (comme dans pas mal d?autres langues) c?est que les Anglais ne >>> parleraient >>> > justement pas comme cela. Le discours psychanalytique britannique >>> (ou encore >>> > irlandais) est compl?tement ailleurs ainsi que tous ce que vient >>> avec et ce >>> > que l?inspire. C?est pour cette raison entre autres que votre lutte >>> contre >>> > l?herm?tisme psychanalytique reste si solitaire?: tant que >>> ??l??lite?? >>> > existe, il y aura toujours ceux qui voudront y acc?der, n?est-ce >>> pas?? Voil? >>> > pourquoi beaucoup (je crois) entre nous s?occupons des mis en sc?ne >>> de leur >>> > pratique plut?t que des barricades et restent donc dans leurs >>> cabinets. >>> > Apr?s tout, ils sont beaux, nos cabinets, tandis que dehors il fait >>> souvent >>> > froid? >>> > >>> > A ce propos, je vous souhaite une tr?s belle f?te de >>> calendrier?:-)) >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Natalia >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Frans Tassigny" >>> > To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org >>> > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue >>> 34 >>> > Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:36:10 +0100 >>> > >>> > >>> > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. >>> > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. >>> > --- >>> > bonjour, >>> > >>> > Cette version en anglais a ?galement pour but de vous pr?senter le >>> site US >>> > qui l'?dite, je re?ois r?guli?rement leur nouveaut?s et je trouve >>> que >>> > leurs >>> > info sont r?solument diff?rentes que celles publi?es en Europe.... >>> > >>> > Si vous d?sirez plus en savoir voyez : >>> > http://www.lacan.com/ericlaurent.html >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Par ailleurs , voyez : PLoS est une organisation ? but non lucratif >>> des >>> > scientifiques et des m?decins commis ? rendre le monde litt?rature >>> > scientifique et m?dicale une ressource publique librement >>> disponible. >>> > Toutes >>> > nos activit?s sont guid?es par nos principes de >>> > noyau >>> > . >>> > >>> > [image: OUVRIR L'ACCESS]Ouvrir l'Access : Tout que nous ?ditons est >>> > librement accessible en ligne pour que vous lisiez, pour t?l? >>> chargez, >>> > copier, distribuer, et employer (avec l'attribution) n'importe >>> quelle >>> > mani?re vous souhaitez. >>> > >>> > Je crois qu'? l'heure o? la psychanalyse doit s'ouvrir vers les >>> > neurosciences on ne peut plus se contenter de lire Freud uniquement >>> (ou >>> > Lacan), des organisations telles http://www.plos.org/oa/index.html >>> sont >>> > maintenant les nouveaux moteurs du savoir et de la connaissance. >>> J'y >>> > participe activement , j'ai dirig? un mega site produit par l'Open >>> access >>> > financ? par G.Soros cela m'a valu de travaillez avec mobynuke et >>> post >>> > nunke, >>> > le sites que j'ai transform? en e-zine ont re?u une grande >>> affluence. >>> > C'est >>> > donc dans la volont? de continuer sur blog cette philosophie de la >>> > gratuit? >>> > du savoir qu'il faudrait inscrire dans les groupes de >>> psychanalystes. >>> > >>> > FINI LES CHAPELLES DE X Y Z ne r?duisons plus la psychanalyse au >>> plaisir >>> > d'une ?lite, il faut r?solument se diriger vers une ouverture sans >>> bien >>> > sur >>> > pour cela perdre sa sp?cificit?. >>> > >>> > cordial >>> > Frans Tassigny >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&sl=en&u=http://www.plos.org/&sa… >>> > 2006/12/25, ecium.org : >>> > > >>> > > 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: la suture de J.A Miller ver anglophone (kika) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > >>> > > Message: 1 >>> > > Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:05:54 -0200 >>> > > From: "kika" >>> > > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] la suture de J.A Miller ver >>> anglophone >>> > > To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne" >>> > > >>> > > Message-ID: <000c01c72857$badf2340$8d00fea9 at all.com.br> >>> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> > > >>> > > Franz, je m'excuse mais je n'ai pas compris... pourquoi une >>> version en >>> > > anglais? >>> > > >>> > > en tout cas, tout le monde peut avoir son interpr?tation propre >>> de >>> > Lacan. >>> > > et >>> > > on peut discuter sa validit? ou non. mais c'est toujours une >>> > > interpr?tation, >>> > > il ya toujours l'inconscient qui ?tablit les sentiers du su-je. >>> > > >>> > > et je reprends l? des mots parus dans Quarto (Suppl?ment belge ? >>> La >>> > lettre >>> > > mensuelle de l'?cole de la cause freudienne), en 1981: "Ce que >>> notre >>> > > pratique r?v?le, nous r?v?le, c'est que le savoir, savoir >>> inconscient a >>> > un >>> > > rapport avec l'amour." J.Lacan >>> > > >>> > > et il y aurait dans Ornicar? 9 le suivant dialogue entre Miller e >>> Lacan >>> > > qui >>> > > me parait montrer un peu comment op?re ce su-je propre ? chacun >>> des >>> > deux: >>> > > >>> > > "J.-A. M. - Ce serait ? montrer. >>> > > >>> > > J. L. - Ce serait s?rement ? montrer, c'est vrai, mais je ne le >>> > montrerai >>> > > pas ce soir." >>> > > >>> > > alors les ?crits de Miller o? qui que ce soit serviraient juste >>> pour >>> > nous >>> > > faire apprendre que pense-t-il ? partir de son v?cu et sa >>> compr?hension >>> > de >>> > > Lacan. c'est valable, c'est int?ressant, mais ?tre l'au-moins un >>> ? le >>> > lire >>> > > ce n'est pas ?tre Dieu. et c'est ?a ce que je lui reproche. >>> personne n'a >>> > > le >>> > > droit de "syst?matiser", voire asseptiser Lacan, sauf si cel? est >>> fait >>> > > explicitement. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > From: "Frans Tassigny" >>> > > To: "lutecium-group" >>> > > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 9:19 AM >>> > > Subject: [Lutecium-group] la suture de J.A Miller ver anglophone >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium. >>> > > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe. >>> > > --- >>> > > 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]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]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]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]- >>> > > 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]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]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] >>> > > >>> > > 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] Edmund >>> > > Husserl, *L'origine de la g?ometrie*, translation and >>> introduction by >>> > > Jacques Derrida, PUF, 1962. >>> > > >>> > > [2] German >>> > > text with English translation published under the title *The >>> Foundations >>> > > of >>> > > Arithmetic*, Basil Blackwell, 1953. >>> > > >>> > > [3] 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] Which >>> > > is >>> > > why we must say identity and not equality. >>> > > >>> > > [5] I leave >>> > > aside the commentary of paragraph 76 which gives the abstract >>> definition >>> > > of >>> > > contiguity. >>> > > >>> > > [6] And, at >>> > > another level, the impossibility of meta-language (cf by Jacques >>> > > Lacan, *Cahiers >>> > > pour 1'analyse*, No I, 1966). >>> > > >>> > > [7] >>> > > 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. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > (c) lacan.com 1997/2006 >>> > > Copyright Notice. Please respect the fact that this material in >>> > LACAN.COMis >>> > > 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/ >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > 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 >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------ >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Lutecium-group mailing list >>> > > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org >>> > > >>> http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > End of Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 34 >>> > > ********************************************** >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Tassigny Frans >>> > Sint Fransiscusstraat 25 >>> > 8400 Ostende >>> > BELGIQUE >>> > 0496 85 56 82 >>> > >>> > nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/ >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------ >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Lutecium-group mailing list >>> > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org >>> > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group >>> > >>> > >>> > End of Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36 >>> > ********************************************** >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tassigny Frans >>> Sint Fransiscusstraat 25 >>> 8400 Ostende >>> BELGIQUE >>> 0496 85 56 82 >>> >>> nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lutecium-group mailing list >>> Lutecium-group at lutecium.org >>> http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group >>> >>> >>> End of Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 38 >>> ********************************************** >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Tassigny Frans >> Sint Fransiscusstraat 25 >> 8400 Ostende >> BELGIQUE >> 0496 85 56 82 >> >> nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > Envoyez vos cartes de voeux depuis www.laposte.net > Elles seront ensuite distribu?es par le facteur : pratique et malin ! > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Lutecium-group mailing list > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group > > > End of Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 41 > ********************************************** > > Ch?re Aline Dubois-Dugrenot, Seriez-vous mod?ratrice de la liste Lut?cium pour opposer, selon une r?thorique ironique, une fin de non-recevoir ? l'ouverture, certainement critiquable (Une certaine pointe de pros?lytisme, non d?nu?e d'enjeux? Une concurrence?), mais n?anmoins, il me semble, honn?te de Frans Tassigny de nous faire partager son point de vue et ses id?es? Certes, Lut?cium n'est pas une liste o? peut s'afficher tout et n'importe quoi, mais si vous ?tes " *plusieurs* ? penser que l'?nergie que vous ( Frans Tassigny ) d?ployez serait mieux accueillie sur une autre liste de discussion" - qui, d'abord?- , seriez-vous acoquin?e avec d'aucuns qui ne souhaitent plus qu'il participe aux d?bats? De quelle place vous pr?valez-vous pour ranger ce participant au placard? Frans lance un d?bat qui concerne tous les participants int?ress?s sur Lut?cium, pr?neriez-vous l'excommunication (Lacan en a su quelque chose, non?)? Si les jet?es de Frans ne vous int?ressent pas, laissez le au moins s'exprimer! Au nom de quelle ?thique, de quelle inscription, "*plusieurs qui pensent*", s'autoriseraient-ils ? conseiller ? Frans de "se faire voir ailleurs"? Je vous souhaite ? tous d'entrer dans la nouvelle ann?e avec plus de tol?rance, d'ouverture et d'humilit? que jamais, car nous le savons tous, il n'y a pas qu'une seule v?rit?, qu'un seul savoir. Je vous salue respectueusement. Denis Tabellion.

9 20

[Lutecium-group] (sans objet)
by sarmient＠msh-paris.fr 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

CENTRE DE RECHERCHE EN PSYCHANALYSE ET ?CRITURES 2006/2007 Rencontres avec des auteurs psychanalystes suivi d'un d?bat ? la Maison de l'Am?rique latine - 217 bd. St. Germain - 75007 Paris Trois conf?rences de Philippe JULIEN Psychanalyste, ?crivain, ancien membre de l'?cole freudienne de Paris, Philippe Julien donnera une s?rie de conf?rences dans le cadre du ? S?minaires d'?tudes pratiques et cliniques de formation psychanalytique ?. Cette ann?e Philippe Julien nous fera trois conf?rences ? partir desquelles nous entendrons ses positions par rapport ? certains points de deux s?minaires de Lacan, ? L'objet de la psychanalyse ?, ? D'un Autre ? l'autre ? et ses propres r?flexions sur ? Psychanalyse et religion. ? Dans le s?minaire de l'ann?e 1965/1966 Lacan intensifie le dialogue en groupe ferm?. Le pari de Pascal et La divine com?die de Dante en font partie. Ph. Julien tentera de lire les commentaires de Lacan sur le Pari de Pascal, en sa lettre et en sa dynamique propre En deuxi?me lieu, D'un Autre ? l'autre - 1968/1969 -, o? il est question aussi du Pari de Pascal, que lui permettra de s'approcher la th?orie des ensembles et d'analyser le rapport de la jouissance avec la parole et le langage. Enfin, dans Psychanalyse et religion, en suivant Lacan, il articulera le discours en tant que lettre et lien social, c'est ? dire le discours psychanalytique et les autres versants de ce discours, avec les positions diff?rentes que ceux ci entretiennent vis-?-vis de la religion. La position lacanienne sur la religion emprunte dans un premier temps des apports du savoir textuel venant du discours jud?o-chr?tien pour rendre compte de la clinique. Ensuite il y a introduction dans le champ analytique des nominations d'origine religieuse en leur donnant un sens nouveau, non re?u par l'institution analytique. Enfin Lacan s'inqui?te de ce qu'est devenue la psychanalyse : un retour du religieux au d?triment du r?el et de l'objet petit a. Il s'agit de lire les S?minaires en leur lettre et en leur dynamique propre et par les perspectives qu'ils ouvrent sur la conjoncture actuelle et l'avenir de la psychanalyse. Les ressorts d'angoisse et de jouissance qui soutiennent le mal au monde font poindre d'une part un retour de l'obscurantisme religieux, d'autre part une machine de r?pression sociale ? ?chelle inconsciente singuli?re et collective. Philippe Julien essaye de raviver pour nous le sens de la pens?e lacanienne. Il poursuit en d?tail un travail de diff?renciation clinique en mettant en perspective la castration, l'angoisse, l'objet a, fantasme et sympt?me. Br?ve bibliographie * Le manteau de No? : essai sur la paternit?, Descl?e de Brouwer, 1991 * Pour lire Jacques Lacan, Essais, Points, Seuil, 1995 * L'?trange jouissance du prochain, ?thique et psychanalyse, Seuil 1995 * La f?minit? voil?e, alliance conjugale et modernit?, Descl?e de Brouwer, 1997 * Psychose, perversion, n?vrose. La lecture de Jacques Lacan, ?r?s 2000 * Tu quitteras ton p?re et ta m?re, Aubier, 2000. Les conf?rences auront lieu le 9 janvier, le 3 avril et le 3 juillet 2007 ? la Maison de l'Am?rique latine, Auditorium, 217 bd. St. Germain, 75007 Paris, ? 21h. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Le 26 Janvier 2007 ? la Maison des sciences de l'Homme - Salle 214, ? 20h30 54 bd. Raspail -75006 Paris Fr?deric de Rivoyre - Wilhelm Reich et la r?volution sexuelle 26 Janvier 2007 Fr?deric de Rivoyre - Wilhelm Reich et la r?volution sexuelle, ?d. Punctum. Avec l'intervention de Michel Guibal. L'auteur retrace la vie et le parcours intellectuel d'une personnalit? d?rangeante qui cherche ? faire ?voluer les techniques th?rapeutiques et la th?orie psychanalytique. ? travers les grands th?mes de ses travaux, il met en lumi?re ses influences et son h?ritage.

1 0