Informe: Jornadas de Estudio Clínico 4 — New York, October 16-18, 2009 Parafraseando a Gloucester en Richard III, se podría decir: « Ahora es el otoño de nuestro descontento convertido en verano glorioso por el sol de Lacan. » Un frío, ventoso y lluvioso fin de semana de otoño en Nueva York, se tornó luminoso por la luz de la enseñanza de Lacan durante las Jornadas de estudio clínico 4 y los cuarenta lacanianos que se reunieron para discutir la Interpretación. Treinta y nueve americanos-lacanianos provenientes de todo el país (California, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nueva Jersey, Nueva York, Pensilvania, Texas), y también Canadá y México; el más uno, Pierre-Gilles Guéguen, nuestro invitado que cruzó el Atlántico–una vez más–no para traernos la peste, sino para compartir y contribuir a nuestro aprendizaje de la práctica y la teoría lacaniana. La reunión tuvo lugar en la Universidad de Fordham, en el campus de Lincoln Center, merced a las conexiones que la profesora Manya Steinkoler mantiene con su Departamento de Inglés.
El Semblante La primera tarde fue dedicada al tema del próximo Congreso WAP. La charla de Pierre-Gilles Guéguen sobre el Semblant y el falo localizó estos conceptos en la obra de Lacan. Dos mesas redondas continuaron la discusión; la primera sobre « El concepto clínico del Semblante » con Alicia Arenas, Tomás Svolos y María Cristina Aguirre se centró en los diferentes aspectos del semblante en la obra de Lacan, en sus significados múltiples, en su relación con el objeto a, el goce, y la psicosis. El tópico de la segunda mesa redonda fue el « Semblante en la Cultura Contemporánea. » Cyrus Saint Amand Poliakof, Manya Steinkoler, Ellie Ragland y Gary Marshall examinaron el uso del semblante en el arte, la literatura, la religión y el mercado globalizado.
Arte y psicoanálisis: « No le heche la culpa a New York! » Nos trasladamos a Chelsea–adonde están todas las galerías de arte–al espléndido lugar de la X-iniciativa–en el edificio dónde fue la Dia Art Foundation — que amablemente nos acogió para el particular evento de arte y psicoanálisis. Los comentarios de Marc Fumarolli sobre el mercado del arte en Nueva York, y como telón de fondo la pintura de Marchel Duchamp Desnudo bajando la escalera, Pierre-Gilles Guéguen exploró el objeto a en el arte y en el psicoanálisis–sugirió que ambas son formas de extraer el objeto e hizo una una diferencia con las lathouses, todos aquellos objetos que proliferan y circulan en nuestra civilización prometedora de la ilusión de satisfacción inmediata. Unas 120 personas estuvieron presentes en esta reunión.
Presentación de casos clínicos El sábado y el domingo se dedicaron a siete casos clínicos y sus correspondientes debates. Nuestra brújula fué la interpretación — la interpretación lacaniana. Pero el acontecimiento inesperado apareció cuando Pierre-Gilles Guéguen nos sorprendió con un caso suyo, con una cuidadosa elaboración sobre tres interpretaciones particulares de el caso. –Dinorah Otero (Nueva York), comentada por Alicia Arenas, presentó el caso de una joven adolescente en busca del padre y cuya fantasía se organizaba a la manera de « Pegan a un niño. » –Mercedes Acuña (Houston), comentada por Josefina Ayerza, presentó el caso de la profunda crisis de un hombre joven, poco tiempo después de que la hermana tuviera su propia crisis. –Pam Jespersen (Omaha), discutida por Ellyn Altman, presentó el caso de un hombre, un artista que fue capaz de separarse del objeto a través de su trabajo creativo. –José Armando García (Miami), discutido por Tom Svolos, exploró el uso de drogas y el sistema que lo rodea (la ley, la cárcel, la rehabilitación) en un hombre joven, como una manera de producir una separación de la madre. –Charles Merward (California), comentado por Maria Cristina Aguirre, puso en evidencia los efectos desvastadores de la interpretación de un analista anterior que usaba la teoría de la relación de objeto–sobre una mujer, una artista que parte en busca de una satisfacción sado-masoquista. –Vidhya Selvaraj (Omaha), discutido por Pam Jespersen, sorprendió a la audiencia con el caso de un joven autista y la frescura y la delicadeza de sus intervenciones: « Un hombre no golpea a una mujer » que le proporcione una identificación posible: ser un hombre, es ofrecer la opción de no ser mujer y no ser agresivo. Y, por último, Cristina Laurita (Pennsylvania), comentada por Ellie Ragland, presentó el caso de una mujer joven. La interpretación “nada en el río” jugado en el equívoco homofónico de la palabra española « nada”, que significa al mismo tiempo, nada y nadar, no solo condensan el miedo del río y el miedo del vacío, también son una referencia al nombre de la madre .
Interpretación Gastronómica El objeto oral estuvo presente no sólo en las interpretaciones, las presentaciones y discusiones muy útiles para los expositores y el público, sino también en la forma de una ruta gastronómica orquestada por Manya Steinkoler. Los efectos de las Jornadas de Estudio Clínico 4 han sido numerosas: el deseo de trabajar, reunirse, intercambiar … creo que podemos decir, como Obama: « Sí, podemos … crear una comunidad orientada en lo lacaniano en América del Norte! Tendremos nuestros días de estudio el invierno que viene en la soleada Miami sobre el tema « Lectura del inconsciente. » El Comité Científico de las Jornadas de Estudio Clínico 4 María Cristina Aguirre, Alicia Arenas, Tomás Svolos
El Semblante La primera tarde fue dedicada al tema del próximo Congreso WAP. La charla de Pierre-Gilles Guéguen sobre el Semblant y el falo localizó estos conceptos en la obra de Lacan. Dos mesas redondas continuaron la discusión; la primera sobre « El concepto clínico del Semblante » con Alicia Arenas, Tomás Svolos y María Cristina Aguirre se centró en los diferentes aspectos del semblante en la obra de Lacan, en sus significados múltiples, en su relación con el objeto a, el goce, y la psicosis. El tópico de la segunda mesa redonda fue el « Semblante en la Cultura Contemporánea. » Cyrus Saint Amand Poliakof, Manya Steinkoler, Ellie Ragland y Gary Marshall examinaron el uso del semblante en el arte, la literatura, la religión y el mercado globalizado.
Arte y psicoanálisis: « No le heche la culpa a New York! » Nos trasladamos a Chelsea–adonde están todas las galerías de arte–al espléndido lugar de la X-iniciativa–en el edificio dónde fue la Dia Art Foundation — que amablemente nos acogió para el particular evento de arte y psicoanálisis. Los comentarios de Marc Fumarolli sobre el mercado del arte en Nueva York, y como telón de fondo la pintura de Marchel Duchamp Desnudo bajando la escalera, Pierre-Gilles Guéguen exploró el objeto a en el arte y en el psicoanálisis–sugirió que ambas son formas de extraer el objeto e hizo una una diferencia con las lathouses, todos aquellos objetos que proliferan y circulan en nuestra civilización prometedora de la ilusión de satisfacción inmediata. Unas 120 personas estuvieron presentes en esta reunión.
Presentación de casos clínicos El sábado y el domingo se dedicaron a siete casos clínicos y sus correspondientes debates. Nuestra brújula fué la interpretación — la interpretación lacaniana. Pero el acontecimiento inesperado apareció cuando Pierre-Gilles Guéguen nos sorprendió con un caso suyo, con una cuidadosa elaboración sobre tres interpretaciones particulares de el caso. –Dinorah Otero (Nueva York), comentada por Alicia Arenas, presentó el caso de una joven adolescente en busca del padre y cuya fantasía se organizaba a la manera de « Pegan a un niño. » –Mercedes Acuña (Houston), comentada por Josefina Ayerza, presentó el caso de la profunda crisis de un hombre joven, poco tiempo después de que la hermana tuviera su propia crisis. –Pam Jespersen (Omaha), discutida por Ellyn Altman, presentó el caso de un hombre, un artista que fue capaz de separarse del objeto a través de su trabajo creativo. –José Armando García (Miami), discutido por Tom Svolos, exploró el uso de drogas y el sistema que lo rodea (la ley, la cárcel, la rehabilitación) en un hombre joven, como una manera de producir una separación de la madre. –Charles Merward (California), comentado por Maria Cristina Aguirre, puso en evidencia los efectos desvastadores de la interpretación de un analista anterior que usaba la teoría de la relación de objeto–sobre una mujer, una artista que parte en busca de una satisfacción sado-masoquista. –Vidhya Selvaraj (Omaha), discutido por Pam Jespersen, sorprendió a la audiencia con el caso de un joven autista y la frescura y la delicadeza de sus intervenciones: « Un hombre no golpea a una mujer » que le proporcione una identificación posible: ser un hombre, es ofrecer la opción de no ser mujer y no ser agresivo. Y, por último, Cristina Laurita (Pennsylvania), comentada por Ellie Ragland, presentó el caso de una mujer joven. La interpretación “nada en el río” jugado en el equívoco homofónico de la palabra española « nada”, que significa al mismo tiempo, nada y nadar, no solo condensan el miedo del río y el miedo del vacío, también son una referencia al nombre de la madre .
Interpretación Gastronómica El objeto oral estuvo presente no sólo en las interpretaciones, las presentaciones y discusiones muy útiles para los expositores y el público, sino también en la forma de una ruta gastronómica orquestada por Manya Steinkoler. Los efectos de las Jornadas de Estudio Clínico 4 han sido numerosas: el deseo de trabajar, reunirse, intercambiar … creo que podemos decir, como Obama: « Sí, podemos … crear una comunidad orientada en lo lacaniano en América del Norte! Tendremos nuestros días de estudio el invierno que viene en la soleada Miami sobre el tema « Lectura del inconsciente. » El Comité Científico de las Jornadas de Estudio Clínico 4 María Cristina Aguirre, Alicia Arenas, Tomás Svolos
Élisabeth Roudinesco speaks about Lacan, a close friend of hers. By Nathalie Jaudel
“Defend me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies”1: one couldn’t describe any better the edifying conversation on Dr. Lacan that Elisabeth Roudinsesco, “his first biographer in every respect”, who “knew him very well”, had with Raphael Enthoven2 on October 28th. The two interlocutors have competed over the rights to control his legacy [le nom du droit d’inventaire], in venomous ignominy and perfidious innuendo, according to the dictum: “I’m not aiming at anyone, but follow my look” [“je ne vise personne, mais suivez mon regard”]. Florilège, verbatim : RE: It has been said that Lacan was a genius, a crook, an instigator, a manipulator, a sorcerer, a shaman, a philosopher, a guru. And if Lacan was simply the last surrealist? ER: One could say that. […] ER: The spoken is fundamental to Lacan […] Everything is spoken according to Lacan, there is no written work but the thesis. […] RE: So you’re in line with Sollers when he says that there’s a specific problem of Lacan’s rapport to the written, which is precocious, gibberish, gobbledygook and sometimes useless? While his speech is familiar and direct, his writing is knotted, stiff. ER: No, I wouldn’t say that it’s gibberish. There’s gibberish at the end. The last Lacan, that I analyzed (sic)… RE: … he wrote in code at that point… ER: Yes, no, but by then there’s an evolution toward madness, without a doubt, by all means some disorder. […] Except that, in the end, there were 25 volumes! RE: Yes, but against his will! ER: One could say that. THEY PLAY A RECORDING OF DALI SPEAKING ABOUT THE METHOD OF CRITICAL PARANOIA. RE: Dali’s voice reminds me of Lacan’s. One ultimately gets the feeling that in a certain way each of them, without going in the same direction, spoke from the same place. ER: Yes, they met twice: there was a lunch in New York where the two old men met up, which is absolutely fascinating… RE: …the crazier of the two wasn’t who you’d guess! ER: No, not who you’d guess. […[ RE: Would you say that Lacan was a guru in the sense that he presented himself to his audience as the holder [détenteur] – in the sense that one gives to possession [détention], that is – of the truth, or rather a father, in the sense that he was in the eyes of his students, not the holder of the truth, but simply the guarantor that there is a truth somewhere and that he’s there to guarantee the existence of a truth that he doesn’t possess. ER: The second option is the right one. I don’t ever use the term guru for psychoanalysts and certainly not for Lacan because it connotes sect, and guru, you have to be careful with the term when the body [of work] is at stake. […] Similarly, I don’t speak about psychoanalysts in cliques and associations as if they were sects because that’s another domain; even if there were questionable sectarian aspects, it’s necessary to allow things their place. So not guru. But you’re right, guarantor of a certain truth. RE: Guarantor of the fact that there is one truth. ER: But of course, of course there is. […] THEY PLAY AN EXTRACT FROM A PROGRAM TO BE AIRED THE NEXT DAY WITH FRANÇOIS ROUSTANG: “WE’RE SEEING THE FORMATION OF GROUPS OF ANALYSTS THAT ARE GROUPS OF TERRORISTS, […] TO ME, THESE LITTLE ANALYSTS ARE BECOMING VERITABLE LITTLE AYATOLLAHS. […]” RE: What do François Roustang’s diatribes inspire in you, about Lacanians becoming ayatollahs, at least some of them, any way? He’s not wrong, is he? ER: He’s representing a precise phenomenon with exaggerated words, especially coming from someone who was an adulator of Lacan. […] The phenomenon of adulation exists with all masters. There are parrots of Lacan. That exists. […] There are extremely sectarian Lacanians, there are Lacanians who are much more moderate. […] Lacan’s major flaw was to have at some point thought that only his lecture on Freud was valid. […] Or rather, at a certain point, this guarantor of the existence of truth will take itself, himself, to be the only real interpreter of Freud. […] I think it’s necessary to be fair [juste] with Lacan. RE: When we heard Dali [speak] about critical paranoia, he finished by saying that what he liked most, after Mrs. Dali obviously, was money. Could one say the same of Lacan? ER: Yes, he liked money. RE: Is that the reason why he had short sessions? ER: [embarrassed, sighing] Yes and no. RE: Excuse me for posing such objectionable questions, but it’s necessary to ask them because people are asking them. ER: Yes, because there’s no doubt Lacan had a love of money, of fortune; no, because there were other things by which was motivated […] I’m absolutely hostile towards ultra-short sessions, a session has to last at least a half-hour. […] I think that his love of money has often led him to be wrongfully accused. I believe that it existed, but it wasn’t everything, okay, it’s necessary to sort it out. RE: A man who wanted to rationalize the unconscious […] and ultimately found himself making reason delirious. […] ER: Lacan was constantly fighting himself: there was a devil inside Lacan – there was a devil and someone fighting his devilishness. RE: Thank you very much, Elisabeth Roudinesco, it was a pleasure, as always, to hear you speak about psychoanalysis, especially about Jacques Lacan.
Dear Jacque-Alain Miller, I don’t know what to think about Raphael Enthoven, and I’m asking myself why he chose this moment to air his series on psychoanalysis, which exposes on his enemies’ inner beliefs [les plus intimes]. Maybe one could see what Gérard Miller thinks. But I remember this Forum on the Accoyer amendment where Elisabeth Roudinesco was your guest. I remember that you published her Pourquoi tant de haine? Anatomie du Livre noir de la psychanalyse with Navarin. Why show so much deference to her, even though she abused Dr. Lacan in her biography, and you in her Histoire de la psychoanalyse? Hasn’t all this deference allowed this modern Erinye to feel authorized to say whatever she likes about us, about you, and about that which, under the moniker of objectivity, she pursues an hainamoration as implacable as it is eternal?
“Defend me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies”1: one couldn’t describe any better the edifying conversation on Dr. Lacan that Elisabeth Roudinsesco, “his first biographer in every respect”, who “knew him very well”, had with Raphael Enthoven2 on October 28th. The two interlocutors have competed over the rights to control his legacy [le nom du droit d’inventaire], in venomous ignominy and perfidious innuendo, according to the dictum: “I’m not aiming at anyone, but follow my look” [“je ne vise personne, mais suivez mon regard”]. Florilège, verbatim : RE: It has been said that Lacan was a genius, a crook, an instigator, a manipulator, a sorcerer, a shaman, a philosopher, a guru. And if Lacan was simply the last surrealist? ER: One could say that. […] ER: The spoken is fundamental to Lacan […] Everything is spoken according to Lacan, there is no written work but the thesis. […] RE: So you’re in line with Sollers when he says that there’s a specific problem of Lacan’s rapport to the written, which is precocious, gibberish, gobbledygook and sometimes useless? While his speech is familiar and direct, his writing is knotted, stiff. ER: No, I wouldn’t say that it’s gibberish. There’s gibberish at the end. The last Lacan, that I analyzed (sic)… RE: … he wrote in code at that point… ER: Yes, no, but by then there’s an evolution toward madness, without a doubt, by all means some disorder. […] Except that, in the end, there were 25 volumes! RE: Yes, but against his will! ER: One could say that. THEY PLAY A RECORDING OF DALI SPEAKING ABOUT THE METHOD OF CRITICAL PARANOIA. RE: Dali’s voice reminds me of Lacan’s. One ultimately gets the feeling that in a certain way each of them, without going in the same direction, spoke from the same place. ER: Yes, they met twice: there was a lunch in New York where the two old men met up, which is absolutely fascinating… RE: …the crazier of the two wasn’t who you’d guess! ER: No, not who you’d guess. […[ RE: Would you say that Lacan was a guru in the sense that he presented himself to his audience as the holder [détenteur] – in the sense that one gives to possession [détention], that is – of the truth, or rather a father, in the sense that he was in the eyes of his students, not the holder of the truth, but simply the guarantor that there is a truth somewhere and that he’s there to guarantee the existence of a truth that he doesn’t possess. ER: The second option is the right one. I don’t ever use the term guru for psychoanalysts and certainly not for Lacan because it connotes sect, and guru, you have to be careful with the term when the body [of work] is at stake. […] Similarly, I don’t speak about psychoanalysts in cliques and associations as if they were sects because that’s another domain; even if there were questionable sectarian aspects, it’s necessary to allow things their place. So not guru. But you’re right, guarantor of a certain truth. RE: Guarantor of the fact that there is one truth. ER: But of course, of course there is. […] THEY PLAY AN EXTRACT FROM A PROGRAM TO BE AIRED THE NEXT DAY WITH FRANÇOIS ROUSTANG: “WE’RE SEEING THE FORMATION OF GROUPS OF ANALYSTS THAT ARE GROUPS OF TERRORISTS, […] TO ME, THESE LITTLE ANALYSTS ARE BECOMING VERITABLE LITTLE AYATOLLAHS. […]” RE: What do François Roustang’s diatribes inspire in you, about Lacanians becoming ayatollahs, at least some of them, any way? He’s not wrong, is he? ER: He’s representing a precise phenomenon with exaggerated words, especially coming from someone who was an adulator of Lacan. […] The phenomenon of adulation exists with all masters. There are parrots of Lacan. That exists. […] There are extremely sectarian Lacanians, there are Lacanians who are much more moderate. […] Lacan’s major flaw was to have at some point thought that only his lecture on Freud was valid. […] Or rather, at a certain point, this guarantor of the existence of truth will take itself, himself, to be the only real interpreter of Freud. […] I think it’s necessary to be fair [juste] with Lacan. RE: When we heard Dali [speak] about critical paranoia, he finished by saying that what he liked most, after Mrs. Dali obviously, was money. Could one say the same of Lacan? ER: Yes, he liked money. RE: Is that the reason why he had short sessions? ER: [embarrassed, sighing] Yes and no. RE: Excuse me for posing such objectionable questions, but it’s necessary to ask them because people are asking them. ER: Yes, because there’s no doubt Lacan had a love of money, of fortune; no, because there were other things by which was motivated […] I’m absolutely hostile towards ultra-short sessions, a session has to last at least a half-hour. […] I think that his love of money has often led him to be wrongfully accused. I believe that it existed, but it wasn’t everything, okay, it’s necessary to sort it out. RE: A man who wanted to rationalize the unconscious […] and ultimately found himself making reason delirious. […] ER: Lacan was constantly fighting himself: there was a devil inside Lacan – there was a devil and someone fighting his devilishness. RE: Thank you very much, Elisabeth Roudinesco, it was a pleasure, as always, to hear you speak about psychoanalysis, especially about Jacques Lacan.
Dear Jacque-Alain Miller, I don’t know what to think about Raphael Enthoven, and I’m asking myself why he chose this moment to air his series on psychoanalysis, which exposes on his enemies’ inner beliefs [les plus intimes]. Maybe one could see what Gérard Miller thinks. But I remember this Forum on the Accoyer amendment where Elisabeth Roudinesco was your guest. I remember that you published her Pourquoi tant de haine? Anatomie du Livre noir de la psychanalyse with Navarin. Why show so much deference to her, even though she abused Dr. Lacan in her biography, and you in her Histoire de la psychoanalyse? Hasn’t all this deference allowed this modern Erinye to feel authorized to say whatever she likes about us, about you, and about that which, under the moniker of objectivity, she pursues an hainamoration as implacable as it is eternal?
