|
For Section II of the Convergence Congress FERREYRA Norberto José I will present a perusal that allows to transmit that psychoanalysis is a discourse and that, as such, implies an inedited social bond, ordered in the discourse of the analyst. The validity of this is not only because of its newness, but also for the profound incidence of the Freudian discovery, the unconscious, in relation to the subversion that this produces with respect to the social bond between speaking beings. The psychoanalysis discourse is not the last explanation of all existing discourses and the respective social ties determined by them, but they give rise to the existence of a specific and productive practice (in a social bond) that did not exist until the Freudian discovery. The preoccupation of Freud (1) is to verify the existence of the same and the effectiveness of this existence. For Freud the effectiveness is not given by the system where the representative of the representation is presented, for example: in that Inc., that Prec., or that Cc.-., but from where it comes from, from that Inc., that Prec., or that Cc. In this determination the Inc. is determining the functioning of all the proposed system in this text. It is necessary to take the two transformations into account, between that Inc. and that Prec., and between that Prec. and that Cc. They always produce in relation to one and the same representative of the representation (there is no double inscription). What happens is that as a result of each transformation energy of substraction remains in the previous system. This is, there is substraction, and it is for the effect of the substraction that the transformations have effectiveness. This means to say that there would not be effectiveness of the unconscious without the production of these transformations and a remainder results as a product. In relation to which that thing outside the language will be in agreement (it is its excess), but in relation to it, its function, this is the object. It can be supposed that for Freud, in the named text, language is the condition of the unconscious. But Freud does not maintain, during his work, that condition, sometimes he inverts it: the Inc. is a condition of the language. Jacques Lacan makes a fundamental and logical decision with respect to this, and establishes the bases of a Freudian field, to give rise to the possible existence of a field of pleasure in his work as well, that which Lacan himself says he longs for it to be called Lacanian. During his entire work concerning this position Freud foes not make the decision: if the Inc. is a condition of the language or if the language is a condition of the Inc. In Freud there is something that is not translated (this beyond, the excess of the language) it is the base of the conformation of the object in terms, at first, of satisfation and insatisfaction. It is in the product of these translations of transformations where the desire is sustained. Later with Lacan we can differentiate, that the object of the desire (product of the substraction) is not the object cause of the desire, because the object cause of the desire is the substraction (this same process) is not its product. It is the passage in the discourse of the position of the object "a" as product (amo discourse) to the position of the object"a"as a cause, through the agent function in the analytical discourse, this being the wrong side of the amo discourse. Desire is not a condition of the unconscious, in the opposite way the unconscious is a condition of desire, while the unconscious is structuring as a language and this takes its place as existence only in the analysis (2), it is in the analysis where the unconscious is ordered in discourse. This means, not only the unconscious is structured like a language, but also the discourse is ordered in discourse. Although Freud has written unconscious discourse or also discourse of the unconscious, the advance of Lacan is the ordering according to the structure of the four discourses, where the analytical act takes place in the discourse of the analyst, where the knowing while unconscious (not known) finds the means to say the truth. In a discourse where the place of the agent makes the analyst be semblant of the object cause of the desire (3). Lacan presents the vortstellungsrepräsentanten (4) saying that, in the text "The repression", Freud affirms that those representatives conform an associative chain that is bound to repression and that, the wortvorstellungreprásentan are in the place where negation is possible, and it is from here on that discourse is possible (it is in analysis where the unconscious is ordered in discourse, as said later in the writing before mentioned.) We see then that the unconscious withstands being structured like a language, it is its condition, but it is in a discourse where it is established, and this only occurs in analysis. This is one of the Lacanian advances with respect to the Freudian unconscious in the Freudian sense. (5). Among other consequences, that we would have, I would like to underline one, and that is the following: because there is unconscious there is desire (6) This then implies the establishment of the Subject supposed Knowledge, the base of the transference, and the function of the object "a" in the development of the direction of the cure. So, if we say unconscious desire we are referring to an articulation where it is not necessary to refer the unconscious desire to a question of attribution logic (unconscious) to such a desire, although this can exist, this is possible because while there is unconscious, there is desire. Even in the psychosis where the discontinuance of the unconscious is the logical-topological way as the existence of the unconscious situates the subject in relation to the desire. It is for this that, among other reasons, Lacan (7) says that the unconscious is knowledge not known and spoken, that is ordered like a discourse, in an analysis. Where the unconscious is a dit-mension (dimension) without which one would not say even that which was said of it. It is in the saying, in a discourse, where the Unconscious is ordered by the relationship between the truth and the knowing, this is the discourse of the analyst. There is a forgetting of the act of saying, not of that said, structural. The analysis makes this forgetting present through the denial that from this it makes the analytical act. From the language to the word, from the word to the discourse Or else, from the clinical to the practical and by the word to the discourse. This is a practice of discourse. Not one psychology is found, for example, to the making of the unconscious only an attribute. Norberto José Ferreyra Bibliographical References: (1) Freud, Sigmund: Lo inconciente (1915). Biblioteca Nueve, Madrid. Tomo VI.
|