Direction of treatment and an indirect transmission from the analysand to the analysand, non – transmission
As long as a psychoanalyst speaks, he is saying to himself
As long as a practitioner of psychoanalysis speaks in public or during treatment, as long as a psychoanalyst speaks, he is speaking to himself (d é s qu’un psychoanalyste dit, il se dit), and (capitalized) he is speaking to himself (Il se dit). Especially during the treatment in the analysis room, when he talks to the analyst, during the intervention, and even when he talks to others in public, he also talks to himself. This involves his division as a speech in the (ê tre parallel). By conducting analysis and completing it, he has come to the position of being psychoanalyzed, at least this position is our expectation for psychoanalytic practitioners. This is what this seemingly insignificant assertion indicates, “When an analyst speaks, he speaks of himself to others.”. This means that psychoanalysis is not only a practice, but also a questioning of oneself: what is psychoanalysis, what will it become, how is its transferability, why is it possible, and what are the conditions for us to pass on Freud’s discoveries in the field of “therapeutic direction”?
Unconscious existence
In fact, it is because of the fact of unconsciousness that “psychoanalysis” has emerged. This is like an example: a 7-year-old boy named his furry bear “Simon”, which happened to be the name of his deceased brother. This brother died in a Nazi concentration camp before he was born, and the name of this teddy bear happens to be his brother’s name. Simon, as a signifier, fell down like this. And everything his parents did before was to ensure that their next child would not know the name in any way. And his furry bear is called “Simon”. Simon was discovered by a 7-year-old child because he heard this phoneme in a sentence. He sensed the echo of this phoneme from the people around him, especially his parents. It is heard as follows: “si mon p è re venait” (if my father came), “si mon arbre de No ë l n ‘é tait pas l à” (if my Christmas tree was not there at the time). Here, a signifier (simon) related to absence and negation is heard. […]
Indirect transmission
The opening of transmission implies the practice of psychoanalysis. Just as practice raises questions for us. This is called (or not called) “transmission”. This is the starting point of our treatment direction. That is to say, this is an indirectly transmitted question that requires us to move aside in order to draw the following question: how does psychoanalysis work, how does the desire of psychoanalysts – the (X) that Lacan calls “mystery” – begin, and how does it continue? How can one occasionally gain a clear understanding of this desire in the work of treatment and its direction, as an analyst? […] Because it reveals a lack of knowledge, which exists among practitioners and becomes particularly severe during the treatment process itself. […]
Disobedience
Something appears here that is not subject to ordered knowledge, which sometimes leads to disagreements among psychoanalysts on certain issues: the cultivation and inheritance of analysts, and the inheritance of analytical rhetoric. The sentence “un analyze se dit quand il dit” here, along with the problematic “se” (reflexive pronoun: “self”), proves an inherent indirect transmission in the analysis process. […] “Indirect” means that there is no direct transmission of psychoanalysis, and it is precisely this that the direction of treatment summons its practitioners. Therefore, the “se” (self) of “se dit” (self talk) needs to be noted by other psychoanalysts outside of treatment. Thus, once an analyst is at the site of treatment, he discovers that he has been clarified and pointed out – “se” – because he met or did not meet his partner.
Backward transmission and progressive transmission
It is precisely in this way that these two terms are used: “backward transmission” and “progressive transmission”. Because this is about listening to the analyst: what happened before and what happened afterwards; After following the direction of treatment and making a choice, it is also necessary to know that the decision taken based on ethical principles, which leads us to constantly face its effects in the future. Overall, this backward transmission imparts a certain characteristic to the treatment, while progressive transmission imparts a certain characteristic to the institution. […]
Regarding the desires of psychoanalysts, regarding the use of
The mystery within the Freudian realm begins here with the statement of knowledge about desire, which ultimately reveals – this “statement” is a futile but inevitable attempt – why the analyst becomes the analyst. It is obvious that this is about the issue of “passing”. In fact, everyone has a fundamental relationship with “passage” and “delivery point” because everyone is immersed in political, social, and historical realities, as well as the “psychoanalytic reality” discovered by Freud. […] “Through” is executed, similar to a reflective diagram, frequently adopted in encounters between psychoanalysts from various places. Through being a location, problems can be presented in the most detailed way possible. Due to this location, structural points are able to take effect. This structural point is the point of a special division where the “pass through” is located: when an analyst becomes an analyst, what emerges here is a questioning of the direction of his treatment, both for himself and his own analysts.
Through, two locations
The division in the process of “passing” forces us to create three special locations each time. On one side are “passers” and on the other side are “juries”, thus creating a discourse of splitting into two places. And, we also need to add another one: “passant” and the discourse analysis he is analyzing. Therefore, on one side, there is the discourse of the ferryman, or hysteria or analyst – “hysteria”, because his discourse idealizes the placement of a great other where the content of his discourse arises. In this case, the jury occupies the position of the master’s discourse (le discourses du ma î tre) in the position of a third party, which is in the sense of an obstacle or barrier, and the passerby is speaking to it, but through two intermediaries, the position of the jury’s master is abolished. […]
The act of knowing
The behavior of knowledge has two aspects: the lack of knowledge and the burden of knowledge. The lack of knowledge (Dao). In the direction of analyzing behavior effectively, analytical experience requires analysts to recognize the lack of knowledge in practice. Lacan designated it as “text knowledge”. It is the “knowledge” expounded by the analyst in treatment, which is what the analyst refers to as his own text, the analyst’s text; This text teaches analysts in practice. From the moment the analyst begins to listen to what the analyst is saying, the analyst knows that there is a gap between what the analyst says and what he, as an analyst, hears. At the same time, Lacan said there is a burden of knowledge, which serves as a reference frame for knowledge. Indeed, that is to say, to refer to the knowledge spoken by Lacan, Freud, and others. Knowledge needs to be forgotten, even if it is acquired during treatment. Both clinical and theoretical knowledge are the same in this regard.
Clinical, practical, ethical
This is because there is no longer a distinction between clinical and theoretical aspects here, but rather between clinical and practical aspects. Practice is assumed to be similar to “what happened there”, which is also clinical, but this assumption is about distinguishing reality. This gap is distinguished by the mystery of analyst desire, which distinguishes between practice and clinical practice. Clinical knowledge, as a form of analysis, is shared by several psychoanalysts for at least a period of time, and the difference between this practice and clinical practice is part of the ethics of psychoanalysis.
The incision of pleasure
Therefore, there exists a subjective stance inherent in the discourse analysis in the relationship between the analyst and his action. In this discourse, analysts are involved. And when it comes to “analytical rhetoric” and “therapeutic direction,” it is about Freudian incision for pleasure, that is, about things related to “la libido”, “Drang de la impulse”, and Freudian “Trieb”. This means that there is an act in both the analyst and the analyst, but he, the analyst, must one day say something about it due to the desire of the psychoanalyst. It is this desire that is an important driving force in the treatment process, imprinting the transmitted desire.
Transmission and/or enjoyment, one cannot do without another
For the action and direction of analysis, we have now come to the first definition, which is related to the incision. It is expressed as: transmission and/or pleasure, one cannot do without the other; Because the knowledge of something – which is connected to both “salvation” and “non salvation”, combined at the level of “enigma” – and/or knowledge together, reaches pleasure. And since then, this direction itself has meant a transmission to itself. At this moment, the missing knowledge is marked by the knowledge of “qui say”, which is called “in consciousness”. Carrying knowledge without knowledge. This is exactly the definition of the term “unconscious in consciousness”. […]
two
Since Freud
Since the beginning of psychoanalysis, the therapeutic direction has been conveying “knowledge”, but this transmission oscillates between two relational patterns: one is presented in an orderly declarative form – operating within the psychoanalytic school – through being repressed and repressed. This kind of transmission actually belongs to the category of knowledge organization, which is the translation from a common teacher to a younger student in the sense of ipso facto (Latin: automatically, without further proof or explanation). However, there is another pattern that is more in the realm of creation, which requires taking on the risks brought about by the analyst’s desire. This means that the analyst, as the subject, will be more or less driven by his own recognized and proven desires. So much so that, in the midst of swaying, this desire reveals itself as its own cause, as its own “objective cause”, existing outside of dependence on the teacher. That’s why practicing a treatment, as Lacan said, is more about leading the analyst’s desires than just being satisfied with the word “reverse transfer”. Because the “d é sir” here refers to Freud’s departure from desire in a state of complete non submission to anything. This is not the origin of Freudian things, but only the beginning. It was from there that Freud began to act as a psychoanalyst to desire, and to transmit, write works, and carry out his treatment.
How does the analyst’s desire begin
This returns to the point of “how the analyst’s desire begins”. Each of us, with our own style, is immersed in it. For Freud himself, this backward transmission occurred, and like each of us, we all “returned to Freud.”. […]
Backward transmission and direction of treatment
What is involved here is “before”, something before this. It is here that it is assumed that there is a “past point” or a “pre past point” in the treatment. We start from the fact that the analyst’s desire leads to treatment, which occurs on the analyst’s side. […] This analyst assumes – “hypothesis” is the pattern he knows, and his knowledge becomes more and more detailed – his analyst does not presuppose this path. He assumes that his analysts are no longer assumed to know the location of his path. His analyst is still assumed to know a lot, but he is no longer assumed to know the path we need to know here. On the analyst’s side, he is a witness accompanying this question – his analyst’s question: how did this happen? What kind of change has happened? What happened during this process? That is to say, analysts come into a category called “psychoanalysis of analysts” from this point on. This path towards analysts is precisely the dimension of the direction of treatment.
control analysis
Now let’s talk about the important aspect of “transmission” in guiding practice. The fact that the desire of a psychoanalyst is a mysterious structure – it can be said that it creates a distance between practice, clinical practice, and ethics – therefore, it is possible for this analyst to supervise and analyze their own analysts; Because this desire also exists on the side of the analyst who has just become an analyst. At this point, a dimension of deception in transfer will drop. In his eleventh seminar “The Four Basic Concepts of Psychoanalysis”, Lacan tells us how there is a “self discovery of the analyst” in this place. And I have to say, he realized to some extent that his desire had transformed him into the person he was. That is to say, the discovery of this (X) equivalent to the object, the “reason for desire”, is of course captured in the category of libido – “libido from the void”. Returning to the eleventh discussion board, Lacan goes further and concludes: “I love you (as the analyst may say), but for some inexplicable reason, I love something in you more than I love you.” This will be his statement at the moment when he becomes an analyst and concludes his analysis. This statement stays at “more than yours… object small (a), I dismember you.”. Isn’t this “when the analyst says it, it’s talking to itself”? However, this object (X) is involved in the journey of fundamental fantasy. That is to say, the experience of impulse in the Freudian sense. This impulse (Trieb) refers to the sublimation of libido from an empty place in front of the analyst in therapy, and it belongs to the desire of the psychoanalyst itself.
From analyst to analyst, passing through analyst in the middle
What we need to do next is the point of “passing” in treatment, where the analyst is still in the process of analysis when they become an analyst. He found this hypothesis increasingly clear to him. What happened to his own analyst has now come to him as well. The same thing that happened to the analyst will happen to him in the same way. Analysts find this increasingly clear assumption when facing analysts. His analysts may have also made such assumptions, that is to say, the assumption of subjectivity has also been made by his own analysts, and so on, to Freud. For some of us, we can quickly trace back to Freud, while for others, we can trace back even further. In my opinion, in order to know how to lead the delivery of a treatment, it is not just about doing an analysis or being an analyst, but also about how to become an analyst and how to desire to continue to become an analyst. How do we master the knowledge about the disobedience of the desire we need? This is not a translation, but a construction based on text, work, work, and the creation of analytical knowledge within itself. These important theories and ethics keep each of us unique, so much so that when we create or sprinkle them, at least at some point, we face danger.
In time, reverse transmission
Since Freud initiated desire, he also initiated the reverse transmission towards the starting point in time. Here, we are the successors of Freud. Perhaps at this moment, we legitimized ourselves as Freudians. Is there a temporary community in this backward time, in the reverse transmission between analysts, where discourse substitution occurs, so that at some point, the analyst’s discourse leads to the analyst’s discourse? The analyst who previously and there occupied a certain position as a mediator, witness, or companion to the problem, that is, a person who became the analyst’s position from another analyst’s position, was there, and the analyst who had already been there was removed from his position and came into the function designated as a “mediator”; And the latter, who should have been on the recliner, has now become an analyst and is responsible for the functions of this ferryman. Yes, the operation of “passing” is clinical and has been present in the direction of treatment since then.
Mystery, emptiness, the ability to speak with slashes
Returning to our question, how do these two Libidos, with their respective and empty colors, come together because the desire of a psychoanalyst arises in such an analyst? In fact, some things here no longer hold true. Two empty merges cannot yield a full! It may still be nothing. And this enigmatic thing, this disobedience, and this possibly non empty color of the energy appeal, this libido, where the energy appeal does not exist. There is no one who can tell the mystery of the analyst’s desires. Does it belong to the original, maternal, lost/rediscovered, never truly rediscovered, and possibly only rediscovered? Such an object is never the original one, can it only be lost and rediscovered? Let’s take another step and inquire about Freud’s relationship with women, which is necessary in the direction of treatment.
Freud’s Desire for Women and Analysts
Since Freud also carried out this backward transmission, he will also experience this dimension that was originally lost. And we dare say that this may be for women. As evidence, we have those young Viennese women whom he told us and has not become outdated to this day: Irma, the hysterical female patients who founded the discipline, the female homosexuality she wrote about in Dura’s case notes in 1923, the article on “femininity” in 1932, and the content surrounding “anxiety and impulsivity” in Lesson 32 of the Psychoanalytic Speech. Freud reexamined his concepts and returned to Freud himself, carrying out some kind of transmission. He considered his own era, the rise of European fascism, and provided a different understanding of these theories. That is to say, the direction of practice and treatment is transmission and indicates the opposite direction. Let’s bring it up. At the beginning, it was at the point of being “female” in its own mystery, which will to some extent add a touch of color to this mysterious libido.
Women, completely different individuals
For both men and women, women are a complete dissident. In this regard, neurosis, whether men or women, always stands on the side of rejection, rejecting the idea that once it is convenient for women, it is assumed that this place is more powerful than others. And is this the tone of analyst desire? The desire and femininity of Freud’s analysts are one of the inherent issues in the direction of our treatment. In fact, in the Oedipus relationship, between the ancestor, mother, and child, if the father’s function is excluded, then women will not appear there. That is to say, this “dissident” will not appear there. Because it is on the other side of the Mobius belt. If we want to find it, we need to find it on the opposite side of the paper tape, where “female” corresponds to “father” on the opposite side. It is on the other side of the unilateral Mobius belt, so it is still in this world, but this woman as a “dissident” takes us out of the religion of Oedipus. So, now we are constrained by two Freudian mysteries, one “what is a father” and the other “what does a woman limited by La want?” These two questions, one cannot answer the other, but one supplements the other, and these two questions complement each other. Starting from this Freudian mystery, what lies between the two is the desire of the analyst, and every practitioner who leads their treatment is constrained by it, just like since Freud, in a backward way, because this practice appears in his mind, appearing in his “ball” like enclosure.
Ball… Floyd’s Ball
We can say that Lacan did not address the issue of women in his 1938 article “Les Complexes familiaux”, but he went on to the implicit issue of mothers as supporters in Melanie Klein’s works, to the issue of brothers, and to the mirror stage. As for his father, he summoned Freud, a man from Vienna who inherited Abraham’s culture. In fact, here, the direction of treatment opens up a practical foundation. The concept of ‘l’Incorporation’ was discussed by Freud in Chapter 7 of ‘Psychology des Masses et Analysis du Moi’ (1922). This is the original identity of the capitalized father, the identity of the father who died due to symbolic murder, which is related to another article written by Freud in 1938- which was also Lacan’s’ Family Complex ‘. That year -‘ Moses and Monotheism ‘(‘L’homme Mo ï se et la religion monoth é iste’). It can be felt that this is related to the desire of the psychoanalyst as the foundation of psychoanalysis. Let’s end this topic with a gradual transmission, which is a place to create our therapeutic direction, a transmission towards the future, established for analysts, but not simply in an institution.
three
Progressive transmission
In the space of institutions, it considers that it is a place that is not subservient to knowledge, it considers the mystery of the analyst’s desire, it understands the dimension of “de existence” that exists in “through”, it hears the echo of “when the analyst says, it is speaking to itself”: a “je de suis”. If this dimension of “de existence” can be combined in anyone’s ball, then it can serve as a psychoanalytic organization for psychoanalysts.
History of psychoanalytic movement
There is an urgent need to say (die) even if it threatens the treatment and makes it de intimate. Say this is “impossible”. However, this is impossible to achieve, as the structure of this mystery arises from this naked “impossibility”. And this does not mean that openly discussing patients is feasible. No. However, the urgent need to speak to others is part of the history of psychoanalytic movement. When someone is at this moment of passage, something comes to the point of participating in the psychoanalytic movement. Here, history and structure are nested together. And this passer, in his own urgent need, is the one who actively realizes his encounter with the Freudian impulse (Trieb). This requires at least one institution, one for this passer, one for a certain passer, one night, some people gather together, two ferrymans, some judges.
Some comments on the passage
What we refer to as the “failure to pass the system” is the failure of institutions to refuse to accept the system, and to leave a place for them here, rather than the failure to accept institutions through the system. We certainly hope that some people, after passing the test, are able to promote the issues conveyed, allowing psychoanalysis to continue in a way that leads everyone’s own treatment model. After passing, there is no title. There is no nomination for anyone or any group. There is only one nomination at the moment of preparation, which provides conditions to understand how an analyst witnesses the point of meeting their desires. By, in fact, it is not to state his own analysis, his fantasies or dreams, but to provide a new signifier for the community of this psychoanalyst, so that each person in the community is stimulated in his own practice. This is not a simple institution, it allows analysts to recount this encounter and provide a setting for the conditions of this encounter. Moreover, it should be emphasized that gradual transmission is also facilitated through institutional activities such as conferences, cartels, clinical teams, and various indirect transmissions, particularly through.This is not simply for the institution of analysts. […]
The gradual transmission highlights the necessity of being well prepared, in order to acknowledge that “passing” is an disobedient point located within the institution. Once this point is set, it is no longer an institution like other institutions. That is to say, by asking questions to the institution about what it is, and such questions put the institution in crisis.
But more often than not, institutions are products of innovation. […]
If the mystery of desire (this bar) of psychoanalysts is no longer respected, even if the structure makes it resist being eliminated, it will still be the triumph of institutional homogenization. Freud had already mentioned this in 1932, when fascism was on the rise. Now, psychoanalysts are involved in the “vast market”, and regarding this, Lacan mentioned through one word: psychoanalysis enters “cultural commerce”.
It is one thing for people who are not analysts to use psychoanalysis to do business in the market, while analysts themselves go into the market, which is a problem and even requires sounding the alarm. Let’s not forget to go back to Freud, as proposed here, it’s a rediscovery – otherwise how do we do it—— The period of 1939-45. Faced with the shock of what happened, Lacan summarized it through this new sophistry:
-“A person knows what is not a person”,
-People come together to be people,
-I declare myself as a person because I am afraid of being convinced not to be one.
Today, we need to fundamentally present the fact that transmission is “transmission or pleasure, one cannot do without the other.”. In order to prevent pleasure from further erasing the unconscious subject, in the face of the world’s noise, its structure needs to be constantly redefined, because we lead the way we treat this fact, because we have done personal analysis and know that we need to continue it.