An Encounter with a Statue : 26th October 2019 : Yaron Gilat

by Julia Evans on October 28, 2019

Circulated on the New Lacanian School’s Messager, see here   as ‘3263.en/ Lacanian Review Online: From Where A Subject Is Born’ on 28th October 2019 : Also published at www.TheLacanianReviews.com , Issue LRO 186,  See here

Information about Yaron Gilat ,  here

JULIA EVANS’ NOTES on FOOTNOTES

– From text : In his 1919 paper, The “Uncanny,” [1] Freud wrote: “It is only rarely that a psychoanalyst feels impelled to investigate the subject of aesthetics even when aesthetics is understood to mean not merely the theory of beauty, but the theory of the qualities of feeling. He works in other planes of mental life and has little to do with those subdued emotional activities which, inhibited in their aims and dependent upon a multitude of concurrent factors, usually furnish the material for the study of aesthetics”. Footnote 1 : This is at the beginning of The Uncanny : p219 of SE XVII : Published by Richard G. Klein at www.Freud2Lacan.com and available here

– From text : If indeed, as Jacques-Alain Miller asserts, the age of interpretation is behind us,  Footnote 3  :  See  Interpretation in Reverse : 1996 : Jacques-Alain Miller or here : From p1 of Russell Grigg’s translation :

You’re not saying anything?

That is what everyone is saying, though they don’t know it yet. And this is why these Journées on interpretation need an interpretation.

The age of interpretation is behind us. Lacan knew it, but he did not say it: he hinted at it [il le faisait entendre], and we are just beginning to read it.

– Footnote 4 : Quote : “The symbolic order captures what is not organized and imposes on it an organization,”4 Miller wrote, “… this organization is a continuity, a meaning, an intention. What appears as a finality is an intention that makes sense.”4  : The Lying Truth : 11th February 2009 (Paris VII University) : Jacques-Alain Miller, given as part of Choses de finesses en psychanalyse, Cours 2008-2009, L’orientation lacanienne,  From p151-152 of Frederic Baitinger & Robert Raber’s translation, published in The Lacanian Review 07, Spring 2019 : Contact Julia Evans for availability :

It is noticeable that we are led to come back from the splendour of the necessity of the narrative towards the humble contingency. We are bound to listen, which is our position in ananalvsis when we are analysts.

These reflections make me re-read differently a formula by Lacan, which
I have deciphered in the past-how many times?-in his inaugural, “The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis”, on page 256 of the Ecrits. [1-see below] Commenting on the psychoanalytic anamneses, the revival of memories, and especially of childhood memories in analysis, he said: “what is at stake is not reality, but truth”; he was implying in it the full speech (according to his expression at that time), a speech whose effect he defined: “to reorder past contingencies by conferring on them the sense of necessities to come.” [2-see below] Let us give a fuller meaning to this verb to reorder. The prefix re-is not needed. If they are contingencies, they are not ordered. They only acquire an organization through the symbolic order, which is nor to be conceived as an immobile structure. The symbolic order captures what is not organized and imposes on it an organization. In particular, this organization is a continuity, a meaning, an intention. What appears as a finality is an intention that makes sense-which wants to say something. There, in this transmutation of contingency into necessity, the lying truth insinuates itself. It is what has always been qualified in psychoanalysis as “rationalization.” Lacan, for his part, did not use this term, but what one calls rationalization is to superimpose on the absurd a rational lie, a lie that makes sense.

For Lacan, from the start, as early as this initial formulation, necessity appears to be nothing but a construction. ….

Footnote 1 & 2 to Miller’s text : See The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan  or here  or Discours de Rome et réponses aux interventions (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan  : Information & availability here :

p17-18 of Anthony Wilden’s translation of Function & Field : The ambiguity of the hysterical revelation of the past does not depend so much on the vacillation of its content between the Imaginary and the Real, for it locates itself in both. Nor is it exactly error or falsehood. The point is that it presents us with the birth of Truth in the Word, and thereby brings us up against the reality of what is neither true nor false. At any rate, that is the most disquieting aspect of the problem.

For the Truth of this revelation lies in the present Word which testifies to it in contemporary reality and which grounds it in the name of that reality. Yet in that reality, it is only the Word which bears witness to that portion of the powers of the past which has been thrust aside at each crossroads where the event has made its choice.

This is the reason why the yardstick of continuity in anamnesis, by which Freud measures the completeness of the cure,, has nothing to do with the Bergsonian myth of a restoration of duration in which the authenticity of each instant would be destroyed if it did not sum up the modulation of all preceding ones. The point is that for Freud it is not a question of biological memory, nor of its intuitionist mystification, nor of the paramnesis of the symptom, but a question of rememoration, that is, of history – balancing the scales in which conjectures about the past cause a fluctuation of the promises of the future upon a single fulcrum : that of chronological certitude. I might as well be categorical in psychoanalytical anamnesis, it is not a question of reality, but of Truth, because the effect of a full Word is to reorder the past contingent events by conferring on them the sense of necessities to come, just as they are constituted by the little liberty through which the subject makes them present. :

p47-48 of Alan Sheridan’s translation : The ambiguity of the hysterical revelation of the past is due not so much to the vacillation of its content between the imaginary and the real, but it is situated in both. Nor is it because it is made up of lies. The reason is that it presents us with the birth of truth in speech, and thereby brings us up against the reality of what is neither true nor false. At any rate, that is the most disquieting aspect of the problem.

For it is present speech that bears witness to that portion of the powers of the past that has been thrust aside at each crossroads where the event has made its choice.

This is why the condition of continuity in anamnesis, by which Freud measures the completeness of the cure, has nothing to do with the Bergsonian myth of a restoration of duration in which the authenticity of each instant would be destroyed if it did not sum up the modulation of all the preceding ones. The point is that for Freud it is not a question of biological memory, nor of its intuitionist mystification, nor of the paramnesis of the symptom, but a question of recollection, that is, of history, balancing the scales, in which conjectures about the past are balanced against promises of the future, upon the single knife-edge or fulcrum of chronological certainties. I might as well be categorical: in psychoanalytic anamnesis, it is not a question of reality, but of truth, because the effect of full speech is to reorder past contingences by conferring on them the sense of necessities to come, such as they are constituted by the little freedom through which the subject makes them present.

– From text : This is the operation of the Symbolic upon the Real, gaping it, perforating it, breaking and slicing it, so that meaning eventually arises. Like a skillful sculptor working his way through marble, the signifiers work their way through the Real. They enter into the Real, an entry from which a subject is born. Footnote 5 : Seminar X : 9th January 1963, pVII 57-58 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation :

To this must be added, that if it is firstly and primarily unconscious, it is because in the constitution of the subject, we must firstly and primarily hold to be prior to this constitution, a certain incidence which is that of the signifier. The problem is that of the entry of the signifier into the real and to see how from this the subject is born. Does it mean that, if we find ourselves as it were before a sort of descent of the spirit, the apparition of winged signifiers would begin to make their holes in this real all by themselves, in the midst of which there would appear one of these holes which would be the subject. I think that, in the introduction of the real-imaginary-symbolic division, no one imputes such a plan to me. It is a matter today of knowing what is there at first, what it is precisely that allows this signifier to be incarnated. What allows it is of course what we have there to presentify ourselves to one another, our body. Only this body is not to be taken either, for its part, in the pure and simple categories of the transcendental aesthetics. This body is not in a word, constitutable in the way that Descartes establishes in the field of extension. It is a matter of our seeing that the body in question is not given to us in a pure and simple fashion in our mirror, that even in this experience of the mirror, there can occur a moment where this image, this specular image that we think we have in our grasp, is modified: what we have face to face with us, our stature, our face, our pair of eyes, allows there to emerge the dimension of our own look and the value of the image then begins to change especially if there is a moment at which this look which appears in the mirror begins to look no longer at ourselves, initium, aura, the dawning of a feeling of strangeness which opens the door to anxiety.

 

Note : If links to any text do not work, check www.LacanianWorksExchange.net. If a particular text or book remains absent, contact Julia Evans.

 

Julia Evans    

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Earl’s Court, London

 

Further posts

Groups & cartels here

Some Lacanian history here

Lacanian Transmission here

Of the clinic here

By Yaron Gilat here

By Jacques-Alain Miller  here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud here

Or by Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here