Is there an univocity of the unconscious ?

LEW René

This question settles(arises) beyond the multiplicity of voices(votes), otherwise persons, by whom less so much " express " you self that : operate, even establish(constitute) the unconscious. Cleanly she(it) implies that the unconscious, that one theorizes about too easily in its constancy, has no determination, or rather determinations which assure(insure) of it peculiarity or even a peculiarity which would pass in transit from a subject to the other one or which would meet herself simply in the identical, in little thing(matter) near, to every each. Especially that the concepts of constancy and univocity have no reciprocity among them. Indeed, it is not the dispersal according to the bodies which gives grip to the question of the multiplicity of " the unconscious ", but the mode of symbolic organization (its function(office) as its functioning) which is his. Because they are the links of word and, more before, speeches - links all the more different that speeches postpone in their foundations and their reasons - which specify what it is it of the unconscious : not held(retained) in the body, as the brains in the box, but escaping him(her) by escaping in the exchange which determines the value of it just as much as it determines this unconscious as such : it(he) has there so as much of unconscious as of modes(fashions) of exchange (cf. infra) ; every unconscious, supposed peculiar as attached(fastened) to the peculiarity of a body, is as well as continuation and, toward the body, display is similar - where from one deducts an inside - of this mode of exchange adjacent to the word. This one takes offence by the topology that this deal redispose constantly for nine, because always and only in the current events : Here and now, and according to an intensity of act which requires an active subject, that is defining as necessary support of the act. It is affair(business) of déixis. But this subject influences, exactly by the word, the act which she(it) establishes(constitutes), as if it was the source of it (where from the illusion of the me) and especially in the reality adjacent to this speech act : in such choice directing exchange answers by becoming updated such consequence of which it supports(bears) implications. Let us call back(remind) here this approach of the act which makes Lacan, it who, in the act, subject becomes identified in significant x which establishes(constitutes) him(it) as it is, in the singular, its exploitation and, in the plural, their report. In other words, the unconscious is relation as far as subject is report (Verbindung, Verknüpfung) : It would certainly be necessary to distinguish these modes(fashions) of link as the unconscious is linguistic relation, under various modes, and as subject is metaphor of the significant report: the first is connection, join, with the character of obligation, déontique, which is connected with it; the second is association, nouage and chain concomitant). One would not so know how to call up it to a génétisme of the significant or the unconscious.
Nevertheless, as in the language generally and particularly in any language, each soaks in the unconscious, without which it(he) is not. This unconscious bath is preliminary however not at all, because otherwise one would suppose him(her) a real outside and previous to the language. But as we are had to speak about the unconscious in this way partitive (Freud evokes so by fractions expulsion : ein Stück Verdrängung, and reality: ein Stück Realität, even ein Stück der Realität whom the pluralise to spread(widen) it, maybe uniformly, material(subject) ? This term of "uniform" costs here in the sense(direction) of "homogeneous", and the idea which should him(her) a spouses of unconscious one ready be carried supposes a character of identity and regularity between parts, otherwise an identity among the unconscious and a common dressing, a standardization (Freud, from a topique to the other one, does not hesitate to speak about parts of the unconscious and their disguise or their covering, for example Deckerinnerungen). But the attempts to force in of unconscious prefabricated and standardized are only attempts of décervelage, with whom(which) everybody cries out, naturally.
However one supports frequently that there are subjective structures types, implying so types of unconscious, are modes(fashions) to be or of exploitation types of
(or : appropriate(clean) à) the unconscious. It is to say that, in this conception, the variability of the unconscious curls up according to the disposal of points of accumulation all around of which regroups the typical signifiance of a subject, which itself can meet in the identical at various persons. These variations lead(drive) so to practices which, on one hand, take into account the unconscious typology; on the other hand, make sure since the access which has the psychoanalyst of the unconscious, according to what it is himself as subject. But when Lacan approaches this question of the subject of the unconscious, it is in term of subject of the science that he develops her(it). And it can not be question to take as unambiguous science and neither his(its,her) called subject : Obsessional two, for example, are not superposables, even clocked (pointed, stuck) as such.
So the unconscious it(he) is considered and handled differently according to the conception which has the psychoanalyst of it. But the idea dominates that the unconscious, in the variability, remains such as in himself(itself) over rather long periods: material(subject) with transformation, but rather constant material in the texture and, literally, long-lasting. Differences, and disputes, between analysts consider as many positions which take, in spite of their differences, the unconscious as every time organized on a common base because constant, which would be necessary, obviously. This standardization aims, naturally , at totalitarian conceptions, which one even involves in the image which one gives of the object of the analysis that is the unconscious, by granting(tuning) him(her) characters universaux of the totalitarian language: trucages, lies, impériosité, according to the lines of "force" which one recognizes by him(her): tyranny or subjection … Question titles returns so in this one: Does the unconscious base itself on identical elements for all ? "Identical" , already to the sense(direction) not to differ, to be the same as unique(only) or, in defect, to be recognizable, comparable, multiple but similar. And to say " the same " , on this side of any description, means going further(getting more expensive) on what establishes(constitutes) the unconscious (as "itself" ) in the homogeneity of this constitution
( More than that of the constituents) and except the consciousness which one has it. That is why the unconscious among, whatever one wants it, in real reports(connections). Lacan will evoke the material(subject) of it, in the minimal ternarité, as " the soul - à-tiers " .
On the whole, question can more directly formulate: one has an unconscious? By underlining or not the one. So well: is the unconscious identical to himself(itself)? By evoking him(it), does one speak about the unconscious as about such, or about what produces him(it), otherwise of what it leads(infers)? Moreover is himself(itself) engendered?
It is certainly an affair(business) of point of view, variable according to the dimensions fractales : at certain level, the unconscious are the same ; in the other one, they are different ; still in the other one, an unconscious would not know how to be taken for identical to himself(itself).
*
To advance(move) on this reality, let us resume one of the faces of the question : is the unconscious homogeneous ? One could rush to answer "no" (for example by leaning on differences between that, I, superego), but it is only for certain "level" of the analysis as it can be said inhomogène; the more at the bottom(really) it(he) " is structured as a language ", even the more before as: cleanly established(constituted) of significant. The structure of significant being the same at least, it establishes(constitutes) the homogeneity of the unconscious. The variability of the unconscious holds while in the variation of the significant in their reports(connections). Now nothing more simple (and all the more difficult to arrest(dread)) that this structure of significant S1S2: significant binary, Vorstellungsrepräsentanz,constituent of the expulsion strictly speaking, bases itself of the représentance unaire, essential of the original expulsion. The arrow "summarizes" , abbreviates a relation of supposition where consequent S2 calls to support himself of an antecedent S1 which he supposes by there even to give itself existence of it. Now Freud, more or less after Jung, calls "complexes" of the significant knots and the unconscious is determined it of so much complexifié himself : every complex is clocked(pointed, stuck) with a significant limit S1 calling S2's accumulation in its neighborhood (so significant paternel for the castration complex). And subject is refendu by the distance from a complex to the other one (so, according to the Freudian cleavage, the déhiscence which exists to go(surrender) to requirements pulsionnelles and go(surrender) to the danger of the threat of castration).
Anyway the difficulty describing the possible unity of the unconscious considers as many the absence of significant unity, subject disappearing behind its alienation, is grip among S1 AND ( S1S2), which establishes(constitutes) the ordered pair which bases the unconscious : as as soon(soon) aroused as the meant of S1 ( pure significant relation), subject faints (the aphanisis is so of constitution) in the production of S2, "among" which it tends to operate as hypokaïmenon(S2S ' 2). The "side" passage of significant one binary in the other one implies this équivocité which specifies them, and the unconscious breaks so with its univocity supposed by departure. This dialectic depends on logical time, according to Lacan, by whom no subject happens in a autonomous way, but systematically by the others, in the significant deal. It is not nevertheless collective unconscious, in the sense(direction) of unconscious one common for all. No subject or unconscious exists otherwise by the others. And nobody holds that to underline the hétéronomie which anchors him(it) logically in the contingency of the feminine, which is barrier of contact with and toward the addition appropriate(clean) for the male.
So the unconscious is not anything otherwise formally : it(he) is functional and not organic, affair(business) of relations and not of dress(holding) : appearing knot chains more than chains and embrace. And it even though one understands(includes) the dress(holding) as variable (variable in the type of chain) herself.
So there is a real difficulty defining the unconscious otherwise that by implementing(operating) him(it), in the transfer and the psychoanalytical cure; indeed no definition extrinsèque considers as the unconscious which would not know how to be confused(merged) with a psychological device. Especially since the terms by which one tries to seize him(it) have no exactly fixed character. So ideas of univocity, identity, of mêmeté - of which definitions are not at once and without confusion accessible(approachable) to a spirit formed in the geometry of solids. But one would not know how to do even for the moment without them, even though it would be only to play them by their negation : no identity of the unconscious to itself, any obstinacy of a mêmeté of the unconscious in the time, any homogeneous extension of what composes the unconscious in the other "parts" of the unconscious. Freud comes there even to support everything of go, and almost in contradiction with facts, that the unconscious does not know either time or negation. Because it is affair(business) of topology of times as negations: the unconscious is determined only of a topology asphérique, about which one would not know how to speak in the singular. And so of any poetics. The appropriate(clean) field of the unconscious would not so know how to have more homogeneity than the field of the significant which exist only in act, in the significant operation, without identity of a significant to itself who would allow to define him(it) objectively. The objectalité of unconscious rest of the order of this particular seizure which requires the transformation of the function(office) in object. So the unconscious it(he) is renewed in any actual exchange (it is even in the effectiveness that is situated real question), according to the current events, not without viscosity in the change, where from it(he) pulls(fires) this character of perpetuity which one grants(tunes) to him(her).
The peculiarity holds only in has there of the one, as says it Lacan, is in the significant unarité appropriate(clean) for the Freudian représentance - and in anything else, because from there every changes. Not the other realities (in the plural) in the heart of the unconscious that the effects of this dialectic enters obstinacy (of the space S1) and change (variability of S2).
The plaiting of links, appropriate(clean) for the word in the language, complexifie since the 1=2 of the interlocution (a single word, according to Benveniste, for two interlocutors), by way of the 2=3 of the witty remark (which passes between two to realize the necessity of the third), towards it
3=4 speeches (three speeches bound(connected) by the analytics as the quarter term, and trinity of the authorities of the reality, of symbolism and the imaginary) and beyond, from the opening of the symptom.
*
So the unconscious about which one speaks in a unambiguous way, as if it was always peculiar and always said the same thing(matter), it takes a variable form
(Umsetzung) according to the conceptions which one has it, so the presentations
(Darstellung) which one gives it. Word, "word" , or talk, it is affair(business) of interpretation, the middle to say, of translation : of a speech in the other one (passage where Lacan places in particular love), and the function(office) of the enjoyment in the object of the desire (effect of Vertretung).
In this passage, in this exchange, how to define basic data, very operation, results ? To exchange defines only by a transfer (of which ?) for counterpart ? Either give in on the enjoyment would imply (by Vertretung, exactly) the suscitation of an object of the desire (always costing as Gegenstand ; return on Meinong). Here, as Lacan repeats him(it) repeatedly, no report, because translation plays an equivalence. No report, because the truth has structure of fiction. But the cultural representations which aim to compensate for this absence of report tend to persist, beyond their emergence.
Better is worth playing a criticism of the significant ambiguity that of unconscious typical ( Including if it is taken in the plural). So, according to the variation of reports(connections), it is always not for the same subject that one has to deal - what underlines the step - de-rapport, by hétérologie.
But, except the analytics which opens to the signifiance to produce her(it), speech is reducing : it(he) reduces the unconscious to something which becomes there controllable, is: in a "applicable" theory. This reduction intervenes according to a lock psychologisante at distance to work complexity due to a speech which would not give in on her(it) (it is there a definition of the opening of the unconscious). Regrettably the opening of the analytical speech (or that of certain analysts) calls up out of necessity of structure (it would be only the round dance of speeches) in an answer of lock by the other speeches (or by the other analysts who are situated there). It is not nevertheless because non-specialized and reducing speech is necessary that it is a question of remaining there: it(he) costs only to serve of appeal for rebasculer in the opening of the unconscious.
According to the differences of conceptions (Auffassung) and speech, implemented(operated) realities are different. It is to underline that the unconscious is not, but that he says, always the same thing(matter) or exactly not, according to the évolutivité pulsionnelle. Still it is necessary not to limit the cure to the recollection and in catharsis, but to push it until the production of the new, which is not inevitably affair(business) of meaning new, because rehearsal does not cost in herself(itself), but as a mode of the structure.
So it is affair(business) of writing, it that the reading implies a significant suscitation which determines the poetry of it by playing the flexibility of the frame topologique. Construction is a function so of the desire: she(it) can be always pushed farther; it is not however the lumber room of a frame précontraint. The unconscious is not a box rhetoric ( a topos), even though it is a vein sales leaflet, awaiting for a subjective development which aims to convince.

14, street Chomel, 75007 Paris
Phone : 01 45 48 87 04
Fax : 01 42 84 23 21
Email : lysimaque@wanadoo.fr