THE PHANTASY, THE UNCONSCIOUS STRUCTURED AS A LANGUAJE AND THE PLACE OF THE ANALYST
Le fantasme, l'inconscient structuré comme un langage et la place de l'analyste.

JOZAMI Adelfa


Wich characterizes the phantasy is its lack of significance, it doesn´t promote sense, its signification is axiomatic. The phantasmatic is a starting point for desire, but because of its own structure doesn´t give place for new.

There is no doubt that the need of including the conceptualizations about phantasy surged from transference itself. While the unconscious always subtracts, its analysis is endless. Directing analysis to its end implicates phantasy, its construction and consecuent tresspasing.

Lacan worked the place of the analyst through the concept of transference. Let us remember in wich position is the analysant when demanding analisis, and in wich one is the analyst placed to answer properly. There is a basic misunderstanding between what the patient demands to the analyst ( supossed knowlwdge subject ) and the place he answers from. This original misunderstanding is equivalent to: " there is no sexual relation". This means there is no proportion between demand and answer.

Resistance gives us a new push, if what is repressed comes back, taking analysis through the ways of significant logic. The subject while meeting again with some of his foundating knowledge, would have access to some of the truth, giving this the necessary freedom to make his life satisfactory. Nevertheless, after a while, he would place himself in the same position. Something responds to another logic. Lacan includes a new place here for the analyst: the "a" object, simoultaneously with his conception about phantasy and semblante.

The place of the analyst in the phantasy construction

The analyst is always inside the structure making posible the building and trespassing of phantasy. Building and trespassing goes together as the first means that in transference words are given to what didn´t have them, producing there a subject that responds to a significant logic. This makes trespassing possible. This second place we find in "They hit a boy", is built in analysis. There the subject is included in the scene moving to the significant logic wich makes easier displacement and metaphore, this means looking for other ways of support and the possibility of new metaphore for the subject.

We situated the cuestion about why building in analysis what will be trespassed later, saying that building implies making trespassing

possible. There is a question that surged in some testimonies about : if the subject´s reality, his phantasmatic, does not make any easier his access to real – from what we can say his phantasmatic construction has failed- ¿ wich is the analyst position in the cure´s direction? It would not be about a construction, as we were seeing, but a reconstruction, in the double curle. There takes place an inscription that gives place, in act, to a subject.

The testimony wich helped me to think about this cuestion was about a patient whose loss of reality made almost impossible her relation with pairs, the excersice of her profession etc.. I want to point here, as Freud did, the difference between the loss of reality for neurosis –that would be the phantasy- reality as a loss, and the loss of reality in psicosis wich implies the lack of veil. The question was clear, to what was the analist offering himself? And how? Not as semblante but as a reflection support in a first time, and as the ideal ego in the second.

 

No-ego of grammatic ( id ), no-ego of unconscious.

While no-ego of unconscious is represented by an emptyness where logic game of significance is produced, no-ego of grammatic tourns around the object, where we can recognize the castration instance.

Must we recognize in clinic when a saying comes from unconscious or when it does from the grammatic phantasmatic? While phantasy of grammatic is an axiom, starting point for a saying, we will always get to it after going through the ways that points the significant. All ways leads to Rome, in this case Rome is the phantasy and the paths are the tourning rounds we give until we reach it, so, as Lacan said, the essential thing is to know the subject can articulate that scene in significants, it means to verify it in all his being and his sinthome. But there is not truth of truth, we are not reaching no real scene, because the only way of saying it is with a metaphore wich generates a false significance. What can be found is the scenic staging from where the subject, diminishing the horror caused by the lack of object, finds position or reads reality.

A patient tells in session that she was bathing her little daughter when the light was surprisingly cut off while her husband was making some electricity fixing. Surprised and frightened by the cut she says: " that´s your drunk father". This is said in loud voice and heard by her husband, becoming a difficult situation. She recalls the frase came out with another voice, she doesn´t recognice herself there. Over the course of analysis a repeated scene came out, where she slept with her mother and surprisingly the light comes and her father appears totally drunk. His apparition not only interferes in her relation with her mother, but also finds end in violent scenes where she has to interfere.

One of the characteristics of the phantasmatic scene is the triangle. This refers to the edipic scene, for what we find a sexual component there. The violent characteristic of the scene was her father´s intention of having sex with her mother in front of her. Another element is the gaze, wich in this case is on her side. On what could I verify that desire in this patient was susteined by the gramatic of the scene? Let´s not forgett that desire and reality are part of the same surface. She is a dancer, when things happened between her and the mirror was ok, but when she had a couple –her husband included- she was taken by irrational celousy. Some time later she could recognice she enjoyed the scene of her husband with another woman, and confessed she could only get sexual pleasure when she imagined she was someone else. Her jouissance was in the gaze. This has to do with the strictly sexual, about his husband as a father, it took her a long time not to take his intervention as a violent irruption. Is important to say her husband was an ex –alcoholic, and that she helped much on that cuestion.

The analitic work, as we were saying, going through the significant ways leads us – and the dreams are the best paths- to the reproduction of the scene, wich has not the characteristics of the traumatic scene ( the truth of truth) but of the staging. In this case a daily situation gives us a hint to build this scene. In other cases the "acting" helps us in this staging when something cannot be heard, because the analyst´s phantasy obstaculizes it or for any other reason that would make it remain "unsaid".

Is also important to place the cuestion of jouissence or satisfaction in the phantasy. Jouissance is linked with repetition of the scene.

We started with " there is no sexual relation", where is foundated then my being, as sexual being, my exsistence, if is not in the other?, that place that thinks me.

The call for the Other, that comes from the unconscious, looks for knowledge. The subject in analisis directs his saying to the other as SSS. But the phantasy, while axiom, is not directed to the Other, it has truth signification.

The analist work is to deduce the statements conteined in the axioma. What would imply here the analyst in the semblante position? Not opposing a thought to the analisant saying, saying that will be building these statements.

We were saying that what in speech is not me is the phantasy, as gramatical staging where the pulsion destiny is ordered. That is why there is no way for the ego to be related to the world without passing through this gramatic where the ego is absent, that is reality. When subject as ego is included in analysis this " reality" looses effectivity.

There is one question left. The castration mark, starting point of the phantasy, is that " one more" that permits the closing, by its inscription, of what would be infinite otherwise, the subject is not in the origin, comes up as an effect of the significant articulation. If a significant in analyisis can emerge a subjet where there was none, we speak of act, a subject of act. Does this modify his reality? This would represent a new axiom.

Let´s go back to the reference point, is there a real scene in the phantasy origin? It is about a construction like the hiding recalling, a recognizable scene is lend to what is not recognizable. Promoting the staging of simbolic and imaginary.

Phantasy is produced by the denial of castration, always that plays the game of repression. If, by the contrary, forcloses the mark of castration,the built of phantasy wouldn´t be needed ( structurally speaking), because there would be universe of speech, the subject uses languaje to be related to the world in an omnipotent way, as in the named case, where the minor trace of loss was catastrophic.

If by the contrary is rendered to the effects of repression, will see emerge in the speech significants wich are no ego; carrying the truth of the inexistent knowledge about sex. It is here where the analyst specially works, as the significant logic is the one that permits to find the reality concepts that lives in each subject.As Lacan said, significant gives origin to what is not there, that is the subject.

This is the original loss.

The subject that emerges from the act, identified to a significant and representing the object, implies a new axiom? What leads me to the question Lacan made in "L´Insu": to what is the analizant identified at the end of analisis?

The phantasm has truth signification, means that works as axiomatic truth for the subject, he comes from there. The analyst, as semblante of "a" establishes the place where the interpretation as truth will be inscribed.

The key is finding the truth as a place. Place that lodges the lack of knowledge about the difference of sex. If truth is the scene, we have the trauma theorie. This is one of psychoanalysis phantasy.

Truth is the place that permits the staging of the scene, from where the subject is excluded, supporting his desire and organizing his thought. The emptying process of truth signification in analysis leads to another relation with truth. It can be waited , while speaks and doesn´t need to say the truth of truth. This waiting posibility allows the subject not to cover the "not thinking" with a "think things", as Lacan said.

The way of doing with this emptiness, that would permit the truth speak promoting new saying, wich identification implies?

Another question, the logic of the double between one and Other is the phantasmatic, this produces an "a" object as a cause, while offers a proportion where there is none. Here the jouissance is prisioner of the object´s place in the phantasy. What happens with jouissance at the end of analisis. The sublimation that implies the production of an "a" , for what satisfaction = jouissance, is outside the phantasy?

 

Adelfa Jozami

May 2000