|
THE PARADIGM OF OBJECT OF THE TOXIC MANIAS: RIVA BRITO de ALMEIDA Alba A Fundamental question stand up when we speculate about the object: what is it about when we allude to the concept, meaning or place of the object in the core of the toxic manias? To inquire into Kant’s "Transcendental Static", we found the "Category of the sensibility", defined as "the capacity of getting informations (receptivity), thanks to the way of how we are affected by the objects "(1). Knowing that, to the Psychoanalysis, to think of the object field correspond to the break up with the purpose of universality of the conscious comprehension and of the knowledge ruled by the Cartesian paradigm ( I think therefore I am alive) and by the rationalist Kantian’s method. It opposes the classic polarity explanation / comprehension, regulated on logic that articulate the rational of the real as far as the unconscious is the "other scene", dwelling-place of the obstructed say, when the nearly-true starts to insinuate through the gaps of consciousness. Even with the need of separation from the conscious ownership over the object domain (proclaimed domain by the Kantian’s rational method) we can’t rescind, however, the notion of the structural relation between the subject and the object which in Psychoanalysis is build in a discourse whose purpose is the ordination even of the elements that build the symbolic world, which work as references of the field that determine the unconscious and is shown by its object. Through this language field we gather the mechanism that reflects upon human subjectivity. This inaugural condition is bail by the logic anteriority of the subject ( he is first spoken ) and is trampled upon the relation of the subject with the Other. From this way, certain positions are placed in a signification system, in a sort of pull to gozo*, which guide and shape the adaptation’s answer submitting to the rules and interpretations of a system, which represents itself initially opaque to the subject but grounded on the laws that formalize the discourse in relation on how each subject is inscribed in it singularity from the question "what am I to the Other?" In this respect we mark the paradigm of the unconscious sustained by the capitalism discourse, which impose to the subject a way of gozo* that diminish him to his object face. And his determination is leashed to a subject structure and his formation. The formulation above warn us about a speech which disembogue in a conceived orientation almost "natural", in a principle of equivalence of the desire to an object of homogeneous satisfaction, common objects socially shared. Consequently, the subject in the condition of object enslaved by the gozo* of the Other (the Other, represented by the culture) culminating by establish the election by an object, which mingle with the supposed accessible Thing ( das Ding ), bestowing value and quality by the belief in his autonomy, passing to present himself by the way of gozo* that the object conveyed. In this sense, the toxic maniac becomes the appanage of exclusion in this kind of relation with the Other, diminishing the significance of the drug to the object of consumption, meaning that is ruled by a symbolic field, that is sustained by an object of right, always available, in a gozo* without interdiction. What imply to say that consumption objects lay upon the subject? Is it the same implied logic of the subject being affected by the object? In what measure the instinct** game of development of the objects, in which the track inscribes the repetition, finding in its basis the inescapable bond with the Other? An answer given by Lacan is that of the irreducible bond with the Other points to ONE of the sexual relation, full relation, which abolishes the distinction between the sexes. On this sense, the fundamental narcissistic relation of love composes the object as a whole. The toxic maniac became ONE with the drug, at the point where all the promises of became ONE with the Other averred impossible (the impossibility of the sexual relation – despair to the human been – although impossible to declare this ONE ). The toxic maniac does not take the drug for a condition of sexual gozo*. The drug, it is what avoid the sexual relation, avoid the incidence of castration. The castration operates a division between the subject and the Other, opening the essential gap that makes him the prop of the desire. The extent of the castration, consequently, produces the reversion of the prevalence of the object position. (Object of gozo* of the Other), installing the repression and the incidence of the subject being affected by the unconscious, according to the way of gozo* defined by the unconscious, as an effect in the real by the symbolic. It is therefore clear, that the secured place by the Other, configure the presentation of the toxic maniac as a slave of a master that summon him to gozar* more and more, exposing each one the face of consumption and the circulation of the objects. What does, the statement, that a toxic maniac is a slave, mean, except that in the master discourse the law is writing as agent, law writing in the structure as categorical imperative ( GOZA!* ), heighten the object to the dominant position (subject at an object position, seeing by the super-ego), at the same time that enounce the menace of vanishing in front of the Other- gozador* by the lack of guarantee from the Name-of-the Father, or by the particular manner where the meaning of the Name-of-the-Father is operating in the structure of the subject? The toxic manias are, in reality, a relation of substitution from the father by the drug, what permit to the subject to declare to this other, that is, the drug. In a certain way, it deals with a work position, when the relation of the object with the father fails, serving as a mean to the subject that has been eclipsed of managing the relation with the Other. The meaning, of the transformed act by the lack of the object (object irremediably lost, in Freud’s saying ), summon the a cephalous instinct** subject to a claim of work; act now conceived as a fracture in front of the demand of more work. The analyst wish is what make possible the construction of a treatment from the treatment demand, up to the moment when this body does not submerge in a question without answer in the relation with the Other, in the shape of an imperative demand proceeding from this. In a certain way, to place the body as the headquarters of unconscious knowledge and truth, accede to a ‘falic’ meaning that will permit to weave with the symbolic thread the language interlaced with the real experience of the gozo* and with an imaginable consistency of the dual relation with the drug. Then we conclude that the affected subject by the objects explicit to a way of specific gozo* of the specified unconscious by the dialectic of the subject with the symbolic where the clutch point is established from the subject to the question that emanate from the Other, the witness-Other that is none of the partners (subject and object). The union of the subject with the object is broken at the point of subversion from this search of uniformity, of the complementary void, gozo* that elides the marks of the subjectivity and the separation between the subject and the Other. One’s expect, with this reasoning, that the truth of distinction is inscribed and stated. NOTES:
Alexandre Frandique Morujão. Lisboa-Portugal: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1985, pag. 61. __________________ Gozo* in Portuguese. Jouissance in French. Goce in Spanish. Instinct** is used in substitution of the word pulsão in Portuguese. Pulsion in French. Pulsión in Spanish. |