"TO READ LITERALLY TO THE LETTER IN THE BODY"

TCHIRA Alberto


"If one doesn’t wait, it is given with that in-

waited that the unexpected and

inaccessible".

Heraclite

 

 

 

 

"In one occasion we meet in his visit some doctors and foreing students, penetrated of respect to the German "official" physiology that end up to irritate him slightly discussing clinical novelties. But,"That can not be –observed one of us-, because it contradicts the Young – Helmholtz theory". He didn’t answer us if he were waiting: "So much worse for the theory; the clinical facts have primacy". But he pronunced a sentence that impressed us intensely: "La Théorie c’est bon mais ça n’empêche pas d’exister." This quote corresponds to the necrological Note written by Freud the same month of Charcot’s death, the Great Master of The French Neurophysiology happened in 1893, in his homage.

The answer of Charcot didn’t wait, however it was really unexpected.

This answer, as Freud wrote in this note, he wrote it in French without appealing to any translation.

When saying of Jones, the direct address, was indeed Freud, the one that he discussed and questioned, perhaps, the one that sought to irritate him and until may be, not slightly with: "..But that cannot be...".

In diverses occasions Sigmund Freud uses this sentence fractionating it, but always in French: "...La théorie c’est bon..." or "...n’empêche pas d’exister...", to say something about the clinic or the psychoanalytical doctrine. In one of these occasions, his reference is made explicit to recognize, as a debt, that this sentence has been recorded for always.

A first consequence that we could infer is that this sentence was able to open ways or perhaps to point Freud a road.

Since, if it was about the knowledge, it would be about an knowledge put in dispute, that is to say, it is the same reason for which needs "to stop to be official" and this way to facilitate the irruption of a novelty, a discursive novelty.

It is in fact, Charcot who, with his great authority, returns its dignity to the hysteria, putting the end to the ironic smiles of those, whose patients’ lamentations were received by doctors until that moment.

But it was not only put in dispute an official knowledge, but also of opening a furrow, to inaugurate a line where the unexpected thing causes a say that it makes listen an enunciation.

This to say is not only a simple enunciated. It is a blow that sounds, and it registers to the way of an engraving.

I will give a detour that it stops then a recapture this blow that sounds, with one interrogation of Jacques Lacan in the Troisième. He tells us: "There is not letter without lalangue, and he asks: "How lalangue it can throw in the letter?"

Now then, we will take notice what Lacan tells us about the particularity of the double negation in the French language for the use of the adverb ne and the adverb pas pas.

The adverb ne produce a mistake with knot and the adverb pas produce a mistake with the substantive (pas) step. It is necessary the ne and the pas.

Lalangue is the nearest thing to lallation, Lacan tells us.

Of Latin lallus: The cantilena "la-la-la" with which the nurse sleeps the

children".

Lallatio is the action that it explains the verb: lallo voice imitative. Verb that explains the voices "la-la-la".

Let us say with Lacan that, what is it is of how was spoken and that it will constitute the same matter of the word.

I return to the sentence that occupies us; Freud sometimes uses only "n’empêche pas", others "n’empêche pas d’exister", and sometimes "La Théorie c’est bon..." and he continues without translating it. I say that he uses it almost voided of sense by way of one material supporting to say what has to say in the occasion; to the way of a joker. But we should say, that yes, that the condition is its declared inscription "recorded".

Does it throw a sentence as letter making body?

I understand that the sentence in its decomposition holed a letter that is made of sense. For this same reason it is allowed as such, and it is linked with other letters and produces sense effects. That is to say, it is no longer the same one, matter was made of lalangue in Freud, we can find it in the texts that refer to the doctrine and to the practice of Psychoanalysis, and to recognise it in the enunciation of the Fundamental Rule.

The sentence turned out to be a bump, and indeed, an unexpected stroke. For what? Among others reasons, because Charcot teaches to Freud that exists know unknown or a not to know, that is bound to the body, in this case, to the one of the hysteric’s body. (Unbekannt).

A body that abandons the "official" anatomy and the physiology for to constituted itself in another body.

In Freud here, as I beleive, a road is inaugurated with consequences. It is in fact driven to a text that demands to be written by his own one reading. That is to say, something is offered to be read. It is a singular writing where the reader is not able to but to be part of the read.

Not any reader would be able to be, (Dupe), Incautious and to read among the ne and the pas, to read among the knot and the step pas that it is franked without the Real.

If Freud was affected by what the hysterical ones told him, it is in fact because they can "said it in a" condition of not knowing it.

It is the resonance of a blow that sounds, it registers to the way of an engraving and it is given to read.

The involuntary transmission of Charcot allows Freud to read the hysterical "simulation" as an enigma.

Today we can say that it is the unfolding of the symbolic among the truth and the real.

Destiny of a transmission that later, Freud, in the order of his reasons, will give it an important value. This value is the setting in scene, another scene, of one truth where a truth goes to the appointment; and the place of this appointment is a body.

How to continue thinking the transmission? How to make the inscription of a speech effective, the analytic speech, but locating in a precise way, what is about his own limit?

It is for the reading that makes Lacan of Freud, and afterwards he locates in Freud, what he calls his mathematics in the texts, and then he makes it starting from the text: "The limits of this way of an interpretation".

The transferable of this mathematics, that of Freud, is in the logic of his speech, in his own (errance)itinerancy. However it is the mathematics insufficient, no matter how much it completes its main function anyway, let us say it again: it bears its own limit.

Lacan tells us that Freud missed the second step because of his to walk, that more than to walk (errer) is un erreur; when seeking to inscribe the analytic speech adapting it to the scientific speech.

What does he tell us? That indeed he commits mistakes, when he stops to be Dupe. He abandons, in this point, his errance and he is deceived in the ERREUR. That is to say, he doesn’t mistake, in fact when he seeks to adapt the analytic speech to the speech of the science, and then he commit mistakes.

As a conclusion: La Théorie c’est bon, mais ça n’empêche pas d’exister... without any translation some operated, according to my reading, to the way of an interpretation for its effects. So much in Freud, as well as in me. It is to say, it franked the step to the real for the metaphor, that like it outlines expressly Lacan: "She", the metaphor, it should be thought in a metaphorical form and it is its own materiality.

This same it makes that our practice, the analytic practice, is constituted this way in a singular practice of the materiality.

 

 

 

Translator: (from the Spanish to the English) Silvia Bolotin.