Extracts from Éric Laurent ‘Lost in cognition’

by Julia Evans on March 22, 2016

Towards ‘Discreet signs in Ordinary Psychosis, clinic and treatment’, the XIVth New Lacanian School’s congress of psychoanalysis in Dublin, Ireland on July 2nd & 3rd 2016

Chosen by Florencia F.C. Shanahan

Circulated on New Lacanian School of Psychoanalysis, Messager, as [nls-messager] 1990.en/ NLS Congress – ORIENTATION 3

On 22nd March 2016

Available http://www.amp-nls.org/page/gb/49/nls-messager/0/2015-2016/2448

Information on full text : Lost in Cognition: Psychoanalysis and the Cognitive Sciences : 2014 : Éric Laurent or here

Extracts

Excerpt From: Éric Laurent. “Lost in Cognition: Psychoanalysis and the Cognitive Sciences.” : translated by Adrian Price : Karnac 2014 : p4 : CHAPTER ONE : Chomsky with Joyce : Full text here :

The following lecture was delivered at the École de la Cause Freudienne on 11 April 2005. Under Serge Cottet’s chairmanship, Jacques Aubert and Éric Laurent were invited to present the recently published Book of Lacan’s Seminar, Le Sinthome.

“Suddenly, in December 1975, a glimmer of light came peeping through. Lacan had just got back from the US and was speaking about Chomsky (Lacan, 2005a, pp. 27–43 [1]). We were acquainted with Chomsky. We had been able to take advantage of the lessons of Jean-Claude Milner, who was and has long remained the leading French Chomskyan. We thought, therefore, that we might find something here, some point of support. Next, in February 1976 [2], a lesson of the Seminar ended with the following declaration: “Mad […]? […] this is not a privilege, […] in most people the symbolic, the imaginary and the real are tangled up […].” (Lacan, 2005a, p. 87)”

“We were starting to understand. For some of his audience a door was opening: we were hearing the flipside to “On a question prior to any possible treatment of psychosis” (Lacan, 2006, pp. 445–458 [3]). What had been established, or so we believed, as a radical distinction between madness as a result of foreclosure, and that which is not affected by foreclosure, was now being displaced. Between neurosis and psychosis, which hitherto stood apart like two distinct continents, there emerged a passage of generalisation. We didn’t understand everything, but an altogether different world was fanning out for us, which we were just starting to glimpse. Likewise, the knots looked to be a theoretical instrument that was highly abstract (a long way from where we were standing) and yet clinical and pragmatic. The many indications about rectifying the “slipped knot” by means of the sinthome lay in this direction.”

Further

Information & details : Lost in Cognition: Psychoanalysis and the Cognitive Sciences : 2014 : Éric Laurent or here

 References:

[1] Seminar XXIII : 18th November 1975 : pII IV of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : www.LacaninIreland.com

I start from my condition which is that of bringing to man what scripture states as, not a help for him, but a help against him. And, from this condition, I try to find my bearings. This indeed is why I was truly, in a way that is worth remarking, why I was led to this consideration of the knot. Which, as I have just told you is properly speaking constituted by a geometry that one may well say is forbidden to the imaginary, which can only be imagined through all sort of resistances, indeed of difficulties. This is properly speaking what the knot, in so far as it is Borromean, substantifies.

If we start, in effect, from analysis, we affirm, it is something different to observing, one of the things that most struck me when I was in America, was my encounter which was certainly not by chance, which was altogether intentional on my part, it was my encounter with Chomsky. I was properly speaking, I will say stupefied by it. I told him so. The idea that I realised he held, is in short one that I cannot say can in a way be refuted. It is even (29) the most common idea, and it is indeed what before my very ears he simply affirmed, which made me sense the whole distance I was from him. This idea, which is the idea, that in effect is common, is this, which appears precarious to me. The consideration, in short, of something that presents itself as a body, a body provided with organs, which implies, in this conception, that the organ is a tool, a tool for gripping, a tool for apprehending. [pII V] And that there is no objection in principle to the tool apprehending itself as such, that, for example, language is considered by him as determined by a genetic fact, he expressed it in these very terms before me; in other words, language itself is an organ. It seems quite striking to me, this is what I expressed by the term stupefied, it seem quite striking to me that from this language, a return can be made back on itself like an organ.

If language is not considered from the angle, that it is, that it is linked to something which, in the Real, makes a hole, it is not simply difficult, it is impossible to consider how it can be handled. The observation method cannot start from language without admitting this truth of principle that in what one can situate as Real, language only appears as making a hole. It is from this notion, the function of the hole that language puts into operation its hold on the Real. It is of course not easy for me to make you feel the whole weight of this conviction. It appears inevitable to me from the fact that truth as such is only possible by voiding this function.

Language moreover eats this Real. I mean that it only allows this Real to be tackled, this genetic Real, to speak like Chomsky, in terms of sign. Or, in other words, of message which starts from the molecular gene by reducing it to what brought fame to Crick and Watson. Namely, this double helix from which there are supposed to start these different levels that organise the body throughout a certain number of stages. First of all the division of development, of cellular specialisation, then subsequently this specialisation of starting from hormones which are so many elements on which there are conveyed, as many sorts of messages, for the direction of organic information.

This whole subtilising of what is involved in the Real by so many of these aforesaid messages, but in which there is only marked the [II VI] veil drawn over what is the efficacity of language. Namely, the fact that language is not in itself a message, but that it is only sustained (30) from the function of what I called the hole in the Real.

For this there is the path of our new mos geometricus, namely, of the substance that results from the efficacity, from the proper efficacity of language, and which is supported by this function of the hole. To express it in terms of this famous Borromean knot in which I put my trust, let us say that it is entirely based on the equivalence of an infinite straight line and a circle.

[2] Seminar XXIII : 10th February 1976 : pVI 12

And what I am raising as a question, since what is at stake, is whether yes or no Joyce was mad, why after all would he not have been? All the more so in that this is not a privilege, if it is true that in (106) most, the Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real are entangled to the pint they are continued from one to the other, if there is not an operation that distinguishes them in a chain, properly speaking, the Borromean knot, of the supposed Borromean knot, for the Borromean knot is not a knot, it is a chain. Why not grasp that each of these loops is continued for each one into the other in a way that is strictly not distinguished and that at the same time, it is not a privilege to be mad.

[3] On a question preliminary to any possible treatment of psychosis : December 1955-January 1956 : two most important parts of Seminar III : Jacques Lacan : Information & availability : here

Further

An up-to-date list of posts on LacanianWorks’ by Éric Laurent : available here

“Ordinary Psychosis” all posts given here