EVOKED
the layman's suspicion about the suggestive use of language in psychoanalysis, Jacques Lacan disturbed, meaning that forced him to argue with theories to answer how the language goes beyond the power of "healing" of suggestion transference, and pushed his followers to argue, to have exposed knowledge of what occurred in the analytic session.
In a paragraph added end of "The instance of the letter" [1] Lacan takes the value of the theory of Perelman, who considers metaphor as a rhetorical function. Later in his teaching Lacan will use the metaphor and give it a value princeps in the structuring of subjectivity. The year after this addition, the names of second and last time in his writings in "The metaphor of the subject" [2] (1961):
"Proceedings of the argument of interest to Mr. Perelman by the contempt in which is tradition of science "In this second phase
rescues Lacan Perelman to reintegrate the argument within the field of psychoanalysis, therefore critical to scientists for their contemptuous treatment of the arguments by the operation of the scholastic tradition, specifically the Greek and the argument that it has no place in scientific discourse productivity: the doxa does not enter the episteme. Perelman is what opens a new school, called for 'open philosophy', 'anti-absolutist' or even 'pragmatic' which has very powerful current developments.
Why argue? In principle there are no procedures for automatic resolution (formulas, algorithms). This means that you can not think the argument without the empty that can never be subsumed in it and, for that matter, is the cause of the effectuation of argument: the language gap benchmark writes the signifier of another strikeout. Such a failure of knowledge indicates a call for the creation (but not less for some others: inhibition in writing). Second argue
involves taking a decision on the arguments. Unlike discursive argumentation and the mathematical proof.
is in this way Lacan digging the groove with the pragmatics of Perelman was trouble the argument from the logical field to use it from psychoanalysis and to speak in psychoanalysis logic the argument indicates that there must be procedures for validating the deduction analytical expertise.
This concerns us very directly because if not, what is the value that we, not only to pass device and the evidence but clinical presentations? Thus Jacques-Alain Miller spent a year of his course-Donco-to demonstrate that the deduction is possible in psychoanalysis from the argument. Argument, then without proof.
But the logic of the argument requires a theory of the subject, leading to a theory of decision and at the same time, the introduction of a theory of the question. Following
Michel Meyers have proposed a logic of question from a sequence problem, question-answering. The thesis is this: when one concept is wrought in any field of knowledge-written a response to a question raised by the author made the instrument of interrogation. Using this logic
polling for arguments allow us to locate, for example, "why is a concept page on that letter, responding to what the problem, ie the opposite of auto-repeat-and boring-of concepts . This attempt to 'activist' to convey the concepts in this way is in the orientation provide a key to not only reading but also for analytical listening. Gerardo Arenas's book makes use of this instrument from a movement of two clips: one of the reader, the second: the author:
The work of Jacques Lacan and his school encourages us to realize what we do (but not least, on behalf of) Psychoanalysis as possible to shorten the distance between what is said to be done and what actually is done. This is not guaranteed by any automatic process of decision itself nor by any school. In this respect Jean Claude Milner warned that there could be as-social-School that will last through time but emptied of the principles that gave rise to the School-research program. Arenas
The book definitely falls in the School-research program with its decision to build from concept to recognize (and to recognize) its relevance over the teaching of Jacques Lacan: the singular. We'll see how it performs on the coordinates from just locate.
As a reader, a point-of Dr. Lacan, Gerardo Arenas keeps track of the concepts that circumscribe the notion of special education in interpreting them as successive responses to a question (What is the path to the singular?) Circumscribing a problem : how to name what that is really the end of an analysis. Thus
Arenas Lacan reads now as author, the problem of the symptom (deconstructed in the teaching of Lacan from its significant role to its former status istente the unconscious) from the question of the effectiveness of the analytic experience .
What is the path to the singular? Gerardo Arenas's book dares to initialize with his trademark this way. So there in my opinion, at least two planes in his statement.
First, the epistemic-clinical course that tied in a precise, comprehensive and elegant concepts that will officiate the compass. And following detailed references Jacques Lacan points to his goal: to build the singular as a key concept in psychoanalysis of the Lacanian orientation.
And secondly, what is even more surprising is the political knotting which is 'In Search of the singular', and that is, in my view, the most original and accomplished its transmission: the way Gerardo Arenas is to enter your name our Lacanian orientation, he does from his statements that do the show in his text-the first level of analysis to which I referred earlier, "there is a path to the singular and it (although maybe not even half-true) or can be written in a way symptomatic from an analysis completed. My hypothesis is that this book also recreates a crucial policy problem of the symptom in psychoanalysis [3]: how he manages each of its practitioners to tell - and be counted "really a unique way in the analytic community in the social bond that has invented analytic discourse. and is a major consequence of the tension of the universal to the singular question, as I decide your reader, in my turn-in these terms: how does one stop to wait for the recognition of the Other, renounce play 'quote-democratic' the sayings of others and find the uniqueness of an answer that allows a longer follow uncritically the annihilation that usually occurs in one's (finally) know boring repetition of petrified holophrastic, where-that same one-has transformed the Another teaching? Arenas
answers from a script calibrated by the orientation of an analysis carried to its end. That is, in my opinion, the compass that crowns its unique style. Readers, your readers from now, we are grateful to their transmission.
[1] Lacan, J. : Writings I - pg.
509 [2] Lacan, J. : Writings 2 - pg.
867 [3] I quote here the title of a landmark book for me Germain L. Garcia: 'The policy of the symptom'
0 comments:
Post a Comment