.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
know that the great enemy of psychoanalysis is not so much medicine, but, as stated by M. Foucault, psychology, that Lacan is saying "an error of assessment of the human being." But there is something worse than Lacan fought all his life because it is, precisely, the inverse of the reading that he himself made of the work Freudian ego psychology. This sweet I or Ego or Self as many schools ask Saxon name, is, let's say entry-cause of great evils to the Subject. Not all bad, since I is the almásigo of Defense and defense if there is no protection, but indicates much protection for whistle-compass Catalan desire.
-
But let's take a little detour before: We know that in the three registers of Lacan, the imaginary-that it is impossible to despise or minimize obviously, correspond to the surface of the body, that is-as Freud defined it-the self. We know that the subject enters the field of the imaginary (ie; builds his ego-the ego does not come from scratch, is a construction of the subject that often fails-) from the image of the Other that Lacan well conceptualized in the well known mirror phase. And finally, we fast, I know, Lacan differentiated (his llanguage permitting) the je of moi, and that the MOI (the I of the Imaginary, unlike of je of enunciation) is not the ICH. This means that the sentence of the Viennese master Wo Es war soll werden ICH should be read very differently than do the post-Freudian (Ego-Psycho to mind). Which states: "The Self That should leave the" must listen " Where the ESO was it ethical to emerge demands the SUBJECT " Therefore, right from the start, we know that the ES-ESO, the IT for some translations, is not the unconscious, and that ICH is not I, but the division-the Freudian Spaltung - Subject. What is the ES / ESO / IT? It is therefore the seat of pleasure-read the Seminar 11 - because, as we know, the unconscious only ordered in a speech. That is: Enjoy the one hand, I wish the other.
-
Well then, let us finally to the point: why psychoanalysis suggests just the obverse of the Other-Psychoanalysis. While Lacan expressed at the seminar mentioned above up in a final analysis will attempt to tilt the mirror, ie the A, that is, barring the Other. That is, and if it is tilted a mirror, I understand then that the hosts mirrors pure defense core of any defense. Go to a specific example of one of the three myths taken by Freud: Narciso. His image - petrified, crystal - paralyze his wish. For seen by looking infinitely will not be allowed to drink water, give up their thirst. Remain as motionless, dead before his desire to continue to be reflected in the cost of the water mirror. Now, we know that image comes from the Other, is the way that the Other took it for enjoyment, hence easily explain how a subject (with its stone I) can imagine that it is the mom FALITO. Sometimes that falito is intelligence, beauty, fashion, sports medals, ranking positions, sometimes-as-O.Massota say is "Mom's salami." Believe the phallus is not in technical terms, imagine that you can fill the lack-incestuous obviously organized by the desire of the mother. Believe the falito is not, therefore, to forgo the castration more I, less subject. So Lacan has been said that the Subject is sick I , the I is, for us followers of the teachings of the French master, a disease, or-to put it more rigorously, a symptom.
But let's take a little detour before: We know that in the three registers of Lacan, the imaginary-that it is impossible to despise or minimize obviously, correspond to the surface of the body, that is-as Freud defined it-the self. We know that the subject enters the field of the imaginary (ie; builds his ego-the ego does not come from scratch, is a construction of the subject that often fails-) from the image of the Other that Lacan well conceptualized in the well known mirror phase. And finally, we fast, I know, Lacan differentiated (his llanguage permitting) the je of moi, and that the MOI (the I of the Imaginary, unlike of je of enunciation) is not the ICH. This means that the sentence of the Viennese master Wo Es war soll werden ICH should be read very differently than do the post-Freudian (Ego-Psycho to mind). Which states: "The Self That should leave the" must listen " Where the ESO was it ethical to emerge demands the SUBJECT " Therefore, right from the start, we know that the ES-ESO, the IT for some translations, is not the unconscious, and that ICH is not I, but the division-the Freudian Spaltung - Subject. What is the ES / ESO / IT? It is therefore the seat of pleasure-read the Seminar 11 - because, as we know, the unconscious only ordered in a speech. That is: Enjoy the one hand, I wish the other.
-
Well then, let us finally to the point: why psychoanalysis suggests just the obverse of the Other-Psychoanalysis. While Lacan expressed at the seminar mentioned above up in a final analysis will attempt to tilt the mirror, ie the A, that is, barring the Other. That is, and if it is tilted a mirror, I understand then that the hosts mirrors pure defense core of any defense. Go to a specific example of one of the three myths taken by Freud: Narciso. His image - petrified, crystal - paralyze his wish. For seen by looking infinitely will not be allowed to drink water, give up their thirst. Remain as motionless, dead before his desire to continue to be reflected in the cost of the water mirror. Now, we know that image comes from the Other, is the way that the Other took it for enjoyment, hence easily explain how a subject (with its stone I) can imagine that it is the mom FALITO. Sometimes that falito is intelligence, beauty, fashion, sports medals, ranking positions, sometimes-as-O.Massota say is "Mom's salami." Believe the phallus is not in technical terms, imagine that you can fill the lack-incestuous obviously organized by the desire of the mother. Believe the falito is not, therefore, to forgo the castration more I, less subject. So Lacan has been said that the Subject is sick I , the I is, for us followers of the teachings of the French master, a disease, or-to put it more rigorously, a symptom.
.
And how can we think that if the subject demands an analysis because its structure makes symptoms, then we are going to fatten the symptom, his ego, like a vitamin deficiency problem? Do not we know that any self-respecting neurotic who comes to us completely infatuated? Do we not realize that his speech tends to be planted in the imaginary plane aa 'Lambda scheme and that, precisely, that empty word to look for the full speech ? How can we allow the subject to orgullezca (in terms Creole it's created) either of his intelligence, his kindness or good habit?
.
these questions seem a bit obvious, they are still dividing waters between certain English and American psychoanalysts and us, by clinic, we are well disposed to listen to the injunctions of the failure of the subject, far more than their obese, chubby and petrified speech infatuation. That is, willing to understand that, as the poet said Discepolín, Another is the fact that the subject is not just a tomato that was believed a flower . .
.
these questions seem a bit obvious, they are still dividing waters between certain English and American psychoanalysts and us, by clinic, we are well disposed to listen to the injunctions of the failure of the subject, far more than their obese, chubby and petrified speech infatuation. That is, willing to understand that, as the poet said Discepolín, Another is the fact that the subject is not just a tomato that was believed a flower . .
.
marcelo augusto perez .
.
.
.
.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment