Roaring 43
There is a spontaneous theory of traumatism. What couldnever happen, has. Unthinkable! Unimaginable! Unbearable! Too much.
“I break down” – Faced with the embodiment of the
impossible, the subject is lost, is no longer as before, neither for himself,
nor for others. No response is worth consideration. The symptom erupts.
impossible, the subject is lost, is no longer as before, neither for himself,
nor for others. No response is worth consideration. The symptom erupts.
Medicine, with help from contemporary science, searches for
a solution – the day after pill, preparation on the eve, immediate verbalization.
It is the response by the erasure of memory – which all may return to the way it
was and that men attend once more to their obligations, as the imperative of
the social bond requires. It did not happen because it should not have
happened. The question becomes: how to live after traumatism without the
traumatism? No lesson to take away from the trauma.
a solution – the day after pill, preparation on the eve, immediate verbalization.
It is the response by the erasure of memory – which all may return to the way it
was and that men attend once more to their obligations, as the imperative of
the social bond requires. It did not happen because it should not have
happened. The question becomes: how to live after traumatism without the
traumatism? No lesson to take away from the trauma.
As traumatism belongs to the facts of existence, as it is
ineliminiable, psychoanalysis opts for another, more pragmatic strategy. No
infringement on memory, erasure, counter-programming, or catharsis will
overcome the real. Even supposing such solutions were possible, the collateral
damage would be too severe and ethically inacceptable.
ineliminiable, psychoanalysis opts for another, more pragmatic strategy. No
infringement on memory, erasure, counter-programming, or catharsis will
overcome the real. Even supposing such solutions were possible, the collateral
damage would be too severe and ethically inacceptable.
So what does psychoanalysis propose? It considers that
trauma truly did happen, that it modified the subject, and that it presents
itself as the inverse of an act. This is why it chooses to learn from it.
trauma truly did happen, that it modified the subject, and that it presents
itself as the inverse of an act. This is why it chooses to learn from it.
Since
the inception of psychoanalysis, analysts, first with Freud, have needed to concede
to the clinical evidence; that psychic reality in no way coincides with
objective reality be it factual or discoursal.
the inception of psychoanalysis, analysts, first with Freud, have needed to concede
to the clinical evidence; that psychic reality in no way coincides with
objective reality be it factual or discoursal.
Furthermore, the notion of traumatism demands a new
definition of facts and of events congruent with the subject of the
unconscious. Let us reflect on the famous example taken from the Interpretation of dreams, as referenced
by Lacan.
definition of facts and of events congruent with the subject of the
unconscious. Let us reflect on the famous example taken from the Interpretation of dreams, as referenced
by Lacan.
A father lost a son, cruel loss, traumatic in the classical
sense. Exhausted, he entrusted a relative to keep vigil beside the body of his
beloved son. But during his turn, this man fell asleep beside the child, himself
in his final sleep. Suddenly, a noise: the candlefire had begun to burn the
beloved body.
sense. Exhausted, he entrusted a relative to keep vigil beside the body of his
beloved son. But during his turn, this man fell asleep beside the child, himself
in his final sleep. Suddenly, a noise: the candlefire had begun to burn the
beloved body.
This is the reality. How does the unconscious respond? With a
nightmare. The child approaches and whispers “Father, don’t you see that I’m
burning?” Where is the trauma? The impossible voice of the dead, this is what
truly awakens the father.
nightmare. The child approaches and whispers “Father, don’t you see that I’m
burning?” Where is the trauma? The impossible voice of the dead, this is what
truly awakens the father.
An indelible image, the eruption of terror, the excess of
emotion, a forever-inarticulable word, are all so many references to the inerasable
wounds of “losses imaged at the cruelest point of the object.”[1]
emotion, a forever-inarticulable word, are all so many references to the inerasable
wounds of “losses imaged at the cruelest point of the object.”[1]
This
expression of Lacan’s, which celebrates, in loss, trauma’s link to objects, how
it leaves the subject directionless in a world deprived of meaning.
expression of Lacan’s, which celebrates, in loss, trauma’s link to objects, how
it leaves the subject directionless in a world deprived of meaning.
The cure begins there, in the interval of the fracture of
the subject, of the perforation of his reality. On these fixed points, the meaning-producing
machine races and exhausts itself, confronted with this real which the
unconscious, blindly, ceaselessly repeats.
the subject, of the perforation of his reality. On these fixed points, the meaning-producing
machine races and exhausts itself, confronted with this real which the
unconscious, blindly, ceaselessly repeats.
Everyone is delusional, that is to say goes his own way,
because everyone is traumatized. But the delusion does not deliver one from
traumatism. When id repeats, in what
conditions can an “Ego” come about?
because everyone is traumatized. But the delusion does not deliver one from
traumatism. When id repeats, in what
conditions can an “Ego” come about?
To the universalization of delusion of Ones-alone, the generalization
of traumatism responds. The unease correlated to the symptom has ceded its
place to trauma correlated to the rejection of the mark, insofar as the
symbolic is losing influence before the real. The dominant utopia is no more
the recourse to the father, but that of zero risk, with the general docility
this entails. But this is without counting on that obscure thing inside us. It
is to psychoanalysis to calculate his just place, always singular, always
contingent.
of traumatism responds. The unease correlated to the symptom has ceded its
place to trauma correlated to the rejection of the mark, insofar as the
symbolic is losing influence before the real. The dominant utopia is no more
the recourse to the father, but that of zero risk, with the general docility
this entails. But this is without counting on that obscure thing inside us. It
is to psychoanalysis to calculate his just place, always singular, always
contingent.
Christiane Alberti,
Marie-Hélène Brousse
Marie-Hélène Brousse
QUOTATIONS
Sigmund Freud
The trivial elevated to the dignity of trauma
“Every experience which produces the painful affect of fear,
anxiety, shame, or of psychic pain may act as a trauma. Whether an experience
becomes of traumatic importance naturally depends on the person affected […].
In ordinary hysterias we frequently find, instead of one large trauma, many
partial traumas […]. In still other cases, a connection with a real
efficacious event, or with a period of time of special excitability, raises
seemingly indifferent situations to traumatic dignity, which they would not
have attained otherwise, but which they retain ever after.”
anxiety, shame, or of psychic pain may act as a trauma. Whether an experience
becomes of traumatic importance naturally depends on the person affected […].
In ordinary hysterias we frequently find, instead of one large trauma, many
partial traumas […]. In still other cases, a connection with a real
efficacious event, or with a period of time of special excitability, raises
seemingly indifferent situations to traumatic dignity, which they would not
have attained otherwise, but which they retain ever after.”
“The Psychic Mechanism of Hysterical Phenomena” (1893), Selected Papers on Hysteria.
A funny satisfaction
“…People who have had severe shocks or who have gone
through serious psychic traumas (such as were frequent during the war, and are
also found to lie at the back of traumatic hysteria) are continually being put
back into the traumatic situation in dreams. According to our acceptation of
the function of dreams, this ought not to be the case. What conative impulse
could possibly be satisfied by this reinstatement of a most painful traumatic
experience?”
through serious psychic traumas (such as were frequent during the war, and are
also found to lie at the back of traumatic hysteria) are continually being put
back into the traumatic situation in dreams. According to our acceptation of
the function of dreams, this ought not to be the case. What conative impulse
could possibly be satisfied by this reinstatement of a most painful traumatic
experience?”
“Revision to the Theory of Dreams” (1931), New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.
Jacques Lacan
The opaque brutality of life
“The famous traumatism where it started, the famous
primitive scene that enters into the economy of the subject and plays at the
heart and horizon of the discovery of the unconscious, what is it? – if not a
signifier whose incidence on life I just now began to articulate. The living
being is grasped as living, insofar as living, but with this gap, this
distance, which is precisely that which constitutes the autonomy of the
signifying dimension as well as traumatism or the primal scene. So what is it?
If it is not that life that grasps itself in a horrible apperception of itself,
of its total foreignness, in its opaque brutality, as a pure signifier for an
intolerable existence of life itself, as soon as it veers off revealing the traumatism
and the primal scene. It is what appears of life to itself as signifier in its
pure state and which can in no way, articulate or resolve itself.”
primitive scene that enters into the economy of the subject and plays at the
heart and horizon of the discovery of the unconscious, what is it? – if not a
signifier whose incidence on life I just now began to articulate. The living
being is grasped as living, insofar as living, but with this gap, this
distance, which is precisely that which constitutes the autonomy of the
signifying dimension as well as traumatism or the primal scene. So what is it?
If it is not that life that grasps itself in a horrible apperception of itself,
of its total foreignness, in its opaque brutality, as a pure signifier for an
intolerable existence of life itself, as soon as it veers off revealing the traumatism
and the primal scene. It is what appears of life to itself as signifier in its
pure state and which can in no way, articulate or resolve itself.”
Seminar V, Formations of the Unconscious (1957).
Two holes to make a traumatism
“The function of touched, of the real as encounter – the
encounter insofar as it can be missed, which the missed opportunity essentially
is – first presented itself in the history of psychoanalysis in the form, which
on its own, already sufficed to awaken our attention – that of traumatism. Is it
not remarkable that at the origins of the analytic experience, the real was
presented in the form of its inassimilability in the form of trauma,
immediately determining, and imposing an origin and accidental appearance?”
encounter insofar as it can be missed, which the missed opportunity essentially
is – first presented itself in the history of psychoanalysis in the form, which
on its own, already sufficed to awaken our attention – that of traumatism. Is it
not remarkable that at the origins of the analytic experience, the real was
presented in the form of its inassimilability in the form of trauma,
immediately determining, and imposing an origin and accidental appearance?”
Seminar XI, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
(1964).
(1964).
“But we know everything since each of us, we invent
something to make up for the hole in the Real. Where there is no sexual
relation, it creates a troumatisation.
One invents. One invents what what can, of course.”
something to make up for the hole in the Real. Where there is no sexual
relation, it creates a troumatisation.
One invents. One invents what what can, of course.”
Seminar XXI, “The Unfooled Err,” lesson from February 19
1974, unpublished.
1974, unpublished.
Psychoanalysis in traumatic parents
“A psychoanalysis reproduces a production of neurosis […]. This
neurosis that one attributes, and not without reason, to the parental action is
only obtainable in the measure that their action articulates precisely the
position of the analyst. Insofar as it [this position] converges on an emerging signifier,
the neurosis will be ordered in accordance with the discourse whose effects
produced the subject. All in all, traumatic parents are in the same position as
the analyst. The difference of position is that the analyst reproduces the
neurosis, whereas the traumatic parent produces it innocently.”
neurosis that one attributes, and not without reason, to the parental action is
only obtainable in the measure that their action articulates precisely the
position of the analyst. Insofar as it [this position] converges on an emerging signifier,
the neurosis will be ordered in accordance with the discourse whose effects
produced the subject. All in all, traumatic parents are in the same position as
the analyst. The difference of position is that the analyst reproduces the
neurosis, whereas the traumatic parent produces it innocently.”
Seminar XIX, “…or Worse” (1971-1972).
“And your wound, where is it? I wonder where resides, where
hides the secret wound all men run to refuge, if one endangers his pride, when
one wounds him. This wound – which becomes in this way the strong interior -,
it is this, which will inflate, fill up. All men know to rejoin it at the point
of becoming this wound itself, a sort of secret and painful heart.
hides the secret wound all men run to refuge, if one endangers his pride, when
one wounds him. This wound – which becomes in this way the strong interior -,
it is this, which will inflate, fill up. All men know to rejoin it at the point
of becoming this wound itself, a sort of secret and painful heart.
Jean Genet
Jacques-Alain Miller
Slay meaning
“’There is nothing […] but the apprenticeship that the
subject endures of one language amongst others.’ What does he mean [Lacan]? That the
veritable traumatic kernel is not seduction, the menace of castration, the
observation of coitus, nor is it the transformation of all of that into
fantasy; it is not Oedipus or castration. The veritable traumatic kernel is the
relation to language. This is what Joyce evidences. This thesis seems coherent
with Lacan’s idea: in place of remembering, why not become a poet. Even if it
is debatable that Joyce is a poet, in a certain manner, we can say he is the
opposite of a poet, since his writing resonates precisely in a way that kills
meaning.”
subject endures of one language amongst others.’ What does he mean [Lacan]? That the
veritable traumatic kernel is not seduction, the menace of castration, the
observation of coitus, nor is it the transformation of all of that into
fantasy; it is not Oedipus or castration. The veritable traumatic kernel is the
relation to language. This is what Joyce evidences. This thesis seems coherent
with Lacan’s idea: in place of remembering, why not become a poet. Even if it
is debatable that Joyce is a poet, in a certain manner, we can say he is the
opposite of a poet, since his writing resonates precisely in a way that kills
meaning.”
“Lacan with Joyce”
La Cause
freudienne, n°38.
freudienne, n°38.
Iteration of a unique event
“Once the vanishing mirages have dissipated into unbeing, the
iteration remains. It is referable to what is called a factual semel – semel meaning ‘once’ in Latin -, a unique event with the value of
traumatism. The last teaching of Lacan
incites us to delimit beyond fantasy this factual semel, called traumatism
in the clinic, or the encounter with jouissance.
For that matter, the great difference between jouissance and Freudian libido, is that jouissance relates in all cases to an encounter, a factual semel remaining untouched in the
background of any dialectic.
iteration remains. It is referable to what is called a factual semel – semel meaning ‘once’ in Latin -, a unique event with the value of
traumatism. The last teaching of Lacan
incites us to delimit beyond fantasy this factual semel, called traumatism
in the clinic, or the encounter with jouissance.
For that matter, the great difference between jouissance and Freudian libido, is that jouissance relates in all cases to an encounter, a factual semel remaining untouched in the
background of any dialectic.
One alone,
Lesson of April 5th 2011.
The real unconscious, is trauma
“What Lacan loved at the end of his seminar, is another perspective on
the unconscious which makes of the unconscious a real. It is the unconscious
inasmuch as it is exterior to the subject supposed to know, exterior to the
signifying machine that produces meaning want
some – here you are, if only to leave it running according to what one
believes himself obligated to do. This unconscious as real is homologous to
what we first evoke of traumatism. It is certainly not a transferential
unconscious that is posed as limit. Yet this real that Lacan takes as the most
oneself in the welcoming reserved to the self-discovery. […] One can
play between the unconscious as real and then the operation that molts it,
diluting it as well, which is the subject supposed to know.”
the unconscious which makes of the unconscious a real. It is the unconscious
inasmuch as it is exterior to the subject supposed to know, exterior to the
signifying machine that produces meaning want
some – here you are, if only to leave it running according to what one
believes himself obligated to do. This unconscious as real is homologous to
what we first evoke of traumatism. It is certainly not a transferential
unconscious that is posed as limit. Yet this real that Lacan takes as the most
oneself in the welcoming reserved to the self-discovery. […] One can
play between the unconscious as real and then the operation that molts it,
diluting it as well, which is the subject supposed to know.”
“The Very Last Lacan”
Lesson from November 15th 2006, unpublished.
Jouissance, pure
chance
chance
“It is precisely in the beyond
interdiction that Lacan could think of positivized jouissance as a body that gets off. The difference is delicate – jouissance no longer comes from an
interdiction, it is a body event. The event value of the body opposes itself to
interdiction, it is not articulated with the law of desire. Jouissance is of the order or
traumatism, of shock, of contingency, pure hazard, and not the law of desire.
It is no longer set in a dialectic, but the object of a fixation.”
interdiction that Lacan could think of positivized jouissance as a body that gets off. The difference is delicate – jouissance no longer comes from an
interdiction, it is a body event. The event value of the body opposes itself to
interdiction, it is not articulated with the law of desire. Jouissance is of the order or
traumatism, of shock, of contingency, pure hazard, and not the law of desire.
It is no longer set in a dialectic, but the object of a fixation.”
One
alone,
alone,
Lesson of February 9th 2011.
Eric
Laurent
Laurent
Living after trauma
“The symptom is the subject’s response
to the traumatic real. This point of real being anxiety understood in a general
sense that includes traumatic anxiety. (S € R). The treatment that deduces
itself from this model is as follows: in case of trauma, one must manage to
give meaning to that which has none.
to the traumatic real. This point of real being anxiety understood in a general
sense that includes traumatic anxiety. (S € R). The treatment that deduces
itself from this model is as follows: in case of trauma, one must manage to
give meaning to that which has none.
But traumatism of the real can be
understood in another sense that which J.-A. Miller develops in his commentary
on the last teaching of Lacan. There is symbolic in the real (R € S), it is the
bath of language in which the child is caught. In this sense, it is language
that is real or at least language as meaningless parasite of the living. We
don’t learn the rules that compose the Other of the social bond for us. The
meaning of the rules invents itself from a primordial point, without meaning,
that is the “attachment” to the Other. After a trauma, one must reinvent
another that no longer exists, and invent a new path that plots itself by the
path of the senselessness of the fantasy and the symptom. One learns no more to
live after trauma than one learns the rules of language.”
understood in another sense that which J.-A. Miller develops in his commentary
on the last teaching of Lacan. There is symbolic in the real (R € S), it is the
bath of language in which the child is caught. In this sense, it is language
that is real or at least language as meaningless parasite of the living. We
don’t learn the rules that compose the Other of the social bond for us. The
meaning of the rules invents itself from a primordial point, without meaning,
that is the “attachment” to the Other. After a trauma, one must reinvent
another that no longer exists, and invent a new path that plots itself by the
path of the senselessness of the fantasy and the symptom. One learns no more to
live after trauma than one learns the rules of language.”
“Trauma upside-down”
Ornicar?
Digital.
Digital.
Matters of fact […]
are not ascertained in the same manner. […] The contrary of every mater of
fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction […] That
the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition and
implies no more contradiction that the affirmation that it will rise. We should
in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it
demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly
conceived by the mind.
are not ascertained in the same manner. […] The contrary of every mater of
fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction […] That
the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition and
implies no more contradiction that the affirmation that it will rise. We should
in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it
demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly
conceived by the mind.
David Hume. An Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on
Cause and Effect.
Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on
Cause and Effect.
[1] «
pertes imagées au point
pertes imagées au point
le plus cruel de
l’objet »
