Jean-Pierre Klotz has co-authored Qui sont vos psychoanalysts? This is the third time Dr. But that one is already a result of transference, without which there is no possibility to approach it. These ways lead to the singularity of the subject, and there is a special stake here about, at the age of universalisation and globalization. It is worthwhile on that point to get a know-how on what is transference, one of the four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis according to Lacan. Transference first appears as an obstacle in the course of free association, as a silence in the middle of the speech, full of passion, but also full of the presence of the analyst.
The usual ways of its interpretation through repetition are wrong ones according to Lacan. The right one is much more the link between love and knowledge, that is to say, between the subject supposed to know and the part of jouissance responding to the emptiness of the subject. Through that, and with the analyst, transference indicates the stakes of what has to be the analyst to do with the real included in the symptom.
Caversham Booksellers: French Psychoanalysis
Session 1: The encounter of love in the analytic experienceThe encounter with love as an obstacle in the well-known Freudian way to transference, his second discovery after the unconscious. But it is worthwhile not to mislead here: there is no unconscious without transference, and love is both a true one and a deceptive way, even if it is impossible not to follow it. Session 2: What is the subject supposed to know? The subject supposed to know is a lacanian concept, a key point of transference. It seems both easy to understand and full of contradictions.
The main point is that it is centered by a hole, where the supposition comes and with which the analyst ought to find its place, without identifying to it, as the analysand does. Session 3: The links between knowledge and jouissance through the experience of transferenceWith the subject supposed to know, transference allows to develop unconscious as knowledge where something is always wanting.
Numéros en texte intégral
That is the reason why there is there a way to what Lacan called his object a , as a jouissance without which nothing of these constructions would be consistent and linked to the real. Is a very simple question, a too simple question at a first glance. Scientific method, following the natural sciences since the 17 th century, is founded first of all in the quantification of phenomena. But how we could make measurable subjective suffering?
How we could make measurable the meaning of suffering and malaise, the subjective meaning of a symptom, even the meaning of an experience, a significant event in subjects life? When you take this scientific principle and you make it extensive to the entire field of subjective suffering you reach an absurd thinking.
Check the answer in the scale from 1 to No, you cannot make measurable the meaning of a subjective experience; there is a profound mistake in this extension of scientific method that reaches what is called, by scientific thinking itself, scientism. Scientism is the belief in the universal applicability of scientific method, as quantification, to all human phenomena.
When you deal with a subjective experience you cannot take this principle as a guide. But there is a more evident argument to say that psychoanalysis is not a science, following the conditions of modern scientific method. This method requires at least the condition of reproducibility of an experience or study under the same conditions and obtaining the same results.
- The Doctor Who Programme Guide?
- Trigonometry Flash Cards: Memorize Values of Trig Functions (sin, cos, tan) from 0 to 360 Degrees;
- One Grave Secret.
The condition of reproducibility is in fact an ideal condition, and there are a lot of scientific theories that are considered as operative in science that cannot be tested by reproducing the experience that would confirm them. But how could you reproduce the experience of a psychoanalytical session, or a psychoanalytical interpretation?
When you deal with the subject of the unconscious, you deal with a real that cannot be reproduced. You cannot reproduce under the same conditions the unconscious formations that are the emergence of the subject of psychoanalysis; you cannot reproduce under the same conditions a dream and its interpretation, you cannot reproduce under the same conditions a parapraxis, a Freudian slip, or what is more important, you cannot reproduce the effect of a psychoanalytical interpretation itself.
The interpretation that has been effective in a case of obsessional neurosis will not necessarily be effective in another case of obsessional neurosis. Even more, he has to put on hold all he knows about other cases in order to be able to listen to the singularity of that case, that one-off case. Each case has its own demonstration and its own validation by its own effects in the psychoanalytical treatment.
In fact, this is also a question for many of the existing scientific practices. For example, in the field of Pharmacology there are the well-known clinical trials for a drug, the clinical trials designed as randomized, the double blind and placebo-controlled trials, the planned experiments with a trial group and a control group.
It consists in the modification, in a systematic form, of the disease treatment in an only patient in a predetermined series of periods. You may say that this method is impossible to follow, too long and too expensive, but in some cases it will be without a doubt the most effective and accurate. Here, I have to make a small parenthesis. A few weeks ago, when I was back in Barcelona working in the development of my speech for today, trying to explain the impossibility of making a replication of the unconscious phenomena and formations, I received, at that very moment, an e-mail from my colleague here in New York, Maria Cristina Aguirre, with a link to a very interesting article published in the New York Times , an article that talks about… replication in science, of course!
This coincidence is nearly a synchronicity of this type, because the article deals with what is impossible to reproduce in the field of science. I quote the following paragraph:. Replication, the ability of another lab to reproduce a finding, is the gold standard of science, reassurance that you have discovered something true.
But that is getting harder all the time. With the most accessible truths already discovered, what remains are often subtle effects, some so delicate that they can be conjured up only under ideal circumstances, using highly specialized techniques. This is not a secondary or a minor problem. One of the most important consequences, as a certain Dr.
That, is: the more scientists expect to find specific results and, therefore, they build their research towards that point, the more they find confirmation through replicability methods. The more they find confirmation of their experiments, the more these experiments are published, quoted, and lead the perspective of new research. As a consequence, the perspective of new and different research is set aside. From our perspective, we may say that this constitutes a good example of the massive effects of the suggestion phenomena that psychoanalysis discovers as a part of the transference.
There is always something that cannot be reproduced in experience and sometimes that is the most important issue, the issue that could lead towards a true scientific advance.
Psychoanalytical Notebooks No.24: Subject Supposed to Know
However, that is precisely ignored, even obliterated, in those published researches that confirm each other in a mutual consensus. This issue is precisely what could allow us to catch a bit of the real, that real that always slips from language and from research. And maybe this tacit knowledge that exists about the unconscious knowledge among us also hides the real knot, the real point of the unconscious that lays in scientific discourse. And, in this sense, it is also an encounter with a real, with the real psychoanalysis deals with.
Where is feminine jouissance? It will be always a question with its enigma preserved in the center of knowledge. That night, from July 23th to 24th, in the year , he has a dream that rests as a real and singular encounter between scientific knowledge and the question about feminine jouissance.
Also by Natalie Wulfing
I will only quote some phrases of the manifest content of the dream, when Freud meets Irma who complains in the dream that all Freudian solutions had failed to heal his symptoms. At that point, Freud writes:. She looked pale and puffy. I thought to myself that after all I must have been missing some organic trouble. I took her to the window and looked down her throat, and she showed signs of recalcitrance, like women with artificial dentures.
I thought to myself that there was really no need for her to do that. There are several associations that lead Freud to the question of female sexuality, but also to the question of death. This is the real of psychoanalysis and we can now pose the following question: where is this real in our contemporary science? Is it possible to catch it, to find some representation of its impossible writing in the scientific knowledge of present days?
I propose you the reading of an actual reference in the field of neurosciences, the reading of someone that at some point was interested in Freud and that tries to represent the unconscious knowledge in the brain mapping of actual neurosciences. I am referring to Antonio Damasio, the neuroscientist, author of some best-sellers in the diffusion of science, the later one titled Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain.
In this work, Antonio Damasio proposes a representation, a mapping of the brain, a brain that would be in its turn a mapping of reality, even a mapping of the real. Even if he proposes the idea of mapping only as a useful abstraction, the operation of mapping the brain activity is today a very suggestive procedure widely published in all kinds of press with the coloured images of fMRI Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
All the thinking activity, all the human thoughts could be represented in this brain mapping, even the unconscious thoughts, of course. This is the ideal goal of neurosciences: mapping the real of human thoughts. But the real unconscious is impossible to map, so impossible as the real itself that does not cease to not be written.