Towards the 11th Clinical Study-Days: Conference “The Ego Of The Obsessional” : 22nd October 2017 (New York) : Gil Caroz

by Julia Evans on October 22, 2017

Published by Radio Lacan http://radiolacan.com/en/home

Available, to listen, http://radiolacan.com/en/topic/1074/3

Towards the 11th Cinical Study-Days: Conference “The Ego Of The Obsessional”.

On Sunday, October 22, in the preparatory framework for the Clinical Study Days to be held in New York on February 9, 10, & 11 in 2018, Gil Caroz presented a video conference entitled: “The Ego of the Obsessional”.

Content

Episode 1

Conference “The Ego of the Obsessional”.

By Gil Caroz

Established by: Karina Tenenbaum

62:00 minutes | Audio in English | Recorded 22.10.2017

Episode 2

Conference “The Ego of the Obsessional”. Questions and Answers.

By Gil Caroz

Established by: Karina Tenenbaum

29:18 minutes | Audio in English | Recorded 22.10.2017

References

Seminar XXIII on the Sinthome : “no-one knows how to satisfy him” :

Seminar XXIII : 18th November 1975 : p11 – 13 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Availability Seminar XXIII: The Sinthome or Joyce and the Sinthome: 1975-1976: beginning on November 18th 1975 : Jacques Lacan or here

: It must be said that one is surprised, in short, that this has in no way appeared to the English philosophers.   I call them philosophers because they are not psychoanalysts. They have a rock solid belief that the word does not have an effect. They are wrong. They imagine to themselves that there are drives, even indeed when they are willing not to translate drive by instinct. They cannot get it into their heads that drives are the echo in the body of the fact that there is a saying. But for this speech to resonate, for it to be consonant with, to use another word of the sinthome madaquin, for it to consonate, the body must be sensitive to it. And that it is, is a fact. It is because the body has some orifices of which the most important, of which the most important because it cannot be stopped, be closed, of which the most important is the ear, because it cannot be shut, that it is because of this that there is a response in the body to what I called the voice.

The embarrassing thing is assuredly that there is not only the ear, and that the look is an outstanding rival to it. More geometrico, because of the form, so dear to Plato, the individual presents himself as best he can, as a body. And this body has a power of (J7) captivation which is such, up to a certain point, that it is the blind that one should envy. How can a blind man, even if he is able to use Braille, how can he read Euclid? The astonishing thing is something that I am going to state, it is that the form only delivers the sack, or if you wish the bubble. It is something that can inflate itself, and whose effects I have already mentioned in connection with the obsessional who is more set on it than anyone else. The obsessionaI said somewhere, I was reminded of it recently, is something of the order of a frog who wants to make himself as big as an ox. We know the effects from a fable. It is particularly difficult, as we know, to tear away the obsessional from this grip of the look.

The sack, as it is conceived of in set theory, as Cantor founded it, manifests itself, demonstrates itself, if every demonstration is held to demonstrate the imaginary that it implies, this sack, I am saying, deserves to be connotated by something ambiguous between one and zero, the only adequate support for what borders on the empty set that is required in this theory. Hence our notation, capital S index 1, S1. I am specifying that that is how it is to be read. This does not constitute the one, but it indicates it as being able to contain nothing, as being an empty sack. It nevertheless remains that an empty sac remains a sac, in other words one which is only imaginable from the existence and the consistency that the body has, that the body has by being a pot. This existence and this consistency must be held to be rea [real] since the Real is to hold them. Hence the word Begr(ffwhich means that. The imaginary shows here its homogeneity to the re [real] and that this homogeneity only holds up because of number, in so far as it is binary, one or zero. Namely that it only supports the two from the fact that the one is not zero. That it exists to zero, but in no way consists in it.

Thus it is that Cantor’s theory has to restart from the couple, but that then the set is third in it. The junction is not made between the first set and what is the other. This indeed is why the symbol falls back on the imaginary. It has the index 2. Namely, by indicating that it is a couple, it introduces division into the subject whatever it may be from what is stated there in fact (de fait).In fact remains suspended on the enigma of stating which is only a fact closing in on itself. Le fait dufait, as one writes lejafte du fait or le faitdujafte, as one says ‘equal in fact’, equivocal and equivalent and, through this, the limit of the said.

The incredible thing, is that men saw very clearly that the symbol could only be a broken fragment. …

Note by Bruno de Florence on 30th November 2017 :

Comment on p11 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : But for this speech to resonate, for it to be consonant with, to use another word of the sinthome madaquin, for it to consonate, the body must be sensitive to it. :

BdF MADAQUIN: which is like a saying by St Tomas d’Aquin (Thomas Aquinas for you English people).

JE The neologism sinthomasaquinian refers to “St. Thomas Aquinas” and, probably, the Thomistic theory of beauty.

&

CGp11 : is something of the order of a frog who wants to make himself as big as an ox. We know the effects from a fable. :

BdF Reference to FROG & OX: very popular 17th tale by Jean de la Fontaine, all French school kids know it, La Grenouille qui veut se faire aussi grosse que le Bœuf, English translation on http://lafontaine.mmlc.northwestern.edu/fables/grenouille_boeuf_en.html

________________________________________________

Rat Man @ 4 mins : Availability Sigmund Freud’s texts available electronically  or here or by Sigmund Freud available here : Sigmund Freud: Notes upon a case of Obsessional Neurosis (The ‘Rat Man’) :1909d: Standard Edition: Vol 10: p155 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9 : p31

___________________________________

Seminar V : Gil Caroz refers from session of 30th April 1958 to end : See Seminar V : The Formations of the Unconscious : 1957-1958 : begins 6th November 1957 : Jacques Lacan : Information here  : the session of 30th April 1958 is not translated by Cormac Gallagher, however the development of the graph of desire is on

p288 of Seminar V : 14th May 1958, Cormac Gallagher’s translation &

p301 of Seminar V : 21st May 1958, Cormac Gallagher’s translation &

p311 of Seminar V : 4th June 1958, Cormac Gallagher’s translation &

p324 of Seminar V : 11th June 1958, Cormac Gallagher’s translation &

p325 of Seminar V : 11th June 1958, Cormac Gallagher’s translation &

p341 of Seminar V : 18th June 1958, Cormac Gallagher’s translation &

p356 & 357 & 358 of Seminar V : 25th June 1958, Cormac Gallagher’s translation &

Jacques-Alain Miller, in the published edition of Seminar V, translated by Russell Grigg, gives the origin of the graph of desire and an explanation of these schemas, as follows, from p517 of this translation :

Editor’s note : The schema constructed over the course of this Seminar (‘the graph of desire’) acquired its definitive form in ‘Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire’, written in 1962(?). See The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire (Royaumont): 19th to 23rd September 1960: Jacques Lacan or here or Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan or here

For the first part of Seminar V, Lacan refers to ‘The Instance of the Letter’, a text from May 1957. See The Agency (Insistence or Instance) of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason since Freud (Sorbonne, Paris) : 9th May 1957 : Jacques Lacan or here : Published in Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan : Information here

Following the first seven chapters of this Seminar (From session 8th January 1958, p101 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation), over December and January, Lacan wrote, ‘On a Question Prior to any Possible Question of Psychosis’. See On a question preliminary to any possible treatment of psychosis : 1958 : Jacques Lacan or here : Published in Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan : Information here

Lacan wrote ‘The Youth of Gide’ (See Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan : Information here) over the February vacation and it was published in April. (The Youth of Gide, or the Letter and Desire. Time-line : This article was published in Critique CXXXI (1958): p291-315) One finds an echo of it in session of 5th March 1958 (p181 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation).

From 5th March 1958 to 23rd April 1958 (inclusive), as well as the session of 7th May 1958, are influenced by the prospect of the public lecture that Lacan was to give in Munich on 9th May called ‘The Signification of the Phallus’. See The Meaning (or Signification) of the Phallus (Munich): 9th May 1958 : Jacques Lacan or here : Published in Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan : Information here.

Finally, the last part coincides with ‘The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power’, a paper presented at Royaumont in July. See The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power:10th-13th July 1958 : Jacques Lacan or here  : Published in Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan : Information here

Further references:

Commentary on the graphs : 1966 : Jacques-Alain Miller

Published in a supplement to the second edition of the Écrits &published separately in Les Cahiers de l’Analyse Nos. 1-2 (1968)

Translated by Alan Sheridan :

P332 – 335 of here

Published in Écrits, a selection (Jacques Lacan) : 1977 : Alan Sheridan : See here

______________________________________

 

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Earl’s Court, London

 

Further posts:

Of the clinic here

Case studies here

By Gil Caroz here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud here

By Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here