|
CONVERGENCY: ESTACOLCHIC Ricardo It seems convenient to me to remember some of the several problems that we face as being attendants to a meeting, to a "convergency" between psychoanalysts. As it is known, such problems appear quickly. Reading the "Act of Foundation" that we signed in Barcelona on 10/30/98 is enough. There, it is declared that: "[...] Psychoanalysis continues. Founded by Freud and after Lacan´s death, exists in its speech. This persistency supposes a supplementary act: that of deducting from the speech another type of link among psychoanalysts". The movement´s objectives are explicit at once. Among them, under item "2" we read: "[...] to multiplicate and stimulate links among those who practice it, to support exchange and discussion". In that spirit, with which one cannot less than agree, I underlined some matters of the document that seem doubtful to me. On the 2nd Page of the "Act" it is stated that psychoanalysis is "[...] called to give the subject a place there where science excludes* him; thus breaking, with any doctrine that would justify itself through the universals realism". I request not to forget the latter: that psychoanalysis "breaks" (underlined R. E.) with the universals realism, since in the same document we can next come across statements based on the so called "universals". • • • Further on, the "Act" endeavours to define the current uneasiness in culture. It mentions psychotherapeutic ideology, technosciences and religion. Each one has deserved a separate paragraph.
Paragraph "d" includes the word Religion, spelt with a capital ¨R¨, the same as "Lights" and "Science"; it is not clear for what reason since in previous paragraphs a, b and c small letters are used to write psychotherapeutic ideology, capitalist speech, subject, truth, unconscious etc. This same paragraph "d" declares that religion " is satisfied ¨ (underlined R. E.) by obturating the lack that produces the division of the subject, while it strives to give sense to the real, guaranteeing a better other world". But: is it true, is it strictly true that religion " is satisfied" with that? Could not it be that the document satisfies itself by affirming that it is religion itself that is satisfied with that? It is the document too that is satisfied by defining religion for ever in four lines; a rather small number considering that religious speech has something like the same antiquity and validity as ordinary speech, that is to say all human history. But leaving aside such a synthetic definition, let us analyze if it is true that religion is satisfied with that, with obturating the subjective division. Any examination of history and of present time provides sufficient elements so as to make us believe that religious speech has produced or at least encouraged a number of further things. For example several theorists and teologians with whose writings Lacan worked quite a lot, Saint Agustín, Saint Thomas, Nicholas of Cusa, Pascal, Spinoza, etc. not to mention art, architecture, politics, ethics, education, philosophy, war, foundations, destructions and many other things. Not pleased with that (declaring that religion is satisfied with that) Lacan was interested in the story of Adam´s rib , in that of the burning bramble, in "Pascal Wager" structure. He also occupied himself with mystical speech, as a possibility of access to the structure of the Other enjoyment, and it is evident that such mystical speech springs from religion. • • • Item "d" comes after mentioning the speeches that increase uneasiness in culture. They are psychotherapeutic ideology, technosciences, and religion. It says: "[...] All (underlined R. E.) this speeches produce universal enunciations..." ˇAll! A paragraph that aims to oppose universal enunciations begins with a universal enunciation. Besides, it had been previously stated that psychoanalysis is not based on universal enunciations. • • • Item "g" says: [...] These speeches (meaning "all") increase the uneasiness that they cause by ignoring the dimension of history. For that, they apply themselves to deny the past and reduce the work of memory to a mere classification..." Let us analyze this, do they increase the uneasiness they cause? Do they cause or increase? They do not seem to be the same thing. Is it true that non-psychoanalytical speeches cause the uneasiness? Would it not be more fair to say that they are answers to it? Other answers. However wrong, failed, fallacious, whatever, but to affirm that they are the cause of uneasiness seems to be risky. For example: Technoscience. Does it cause the uneasiness or strives a debatable way to answer? To say that everyone ignores the dimension of history does not seem the best attitude. Upon opening any science book we can find information, sometimes plentiful, as regards how things were thought of in the past, later and nowadays, revolutions and turns, revision of matters and so on. Religious speech refers only to history, the genesis, paradise lost, the murder of Abel, the flood, the arrival of the Messiah. Attend any religious ceremony and you will see the historical dimension represented. Thus, they do not deny history, but only read it differently and they certainly avoid the use of notions such as "return of the repressed", "primal repression", etc. They neither do so, nor claim to do so. • • • Besides, doubts arise as regards whether the diverse sense effects of each speech have been sufficiently assessed in their particular (but very different!) way of "denying history", including differences among religious speeches. Buddhism, Integrismo, Protestantism, etc. may not be equivalent in their sense effects, (whether denying history or contenting themselves with giving sense). • • • To end this note I shall say that if technosciences and religion exist, if the offer of such speeches gives rise to demand, it is because subjects also exist. And a logic that opposes good and bad, i.e. a logic of rivalling structure, may not be the best choice. These oppositions imbue the majority of speeches generated by technosciences and religion. Ricardo Estacolchic Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 2000 |