« Ordinary Psychosis »
Note #3: Éric Laurent
… the inconsistencies of the barred Other, and the consequences that it has in the functioning of a civilization in which the knotting of the established discourses—only a few of them have consistency—depends on the way in which each subject makes the norm of his inventions, can write his inventions of knotting, of quilting, what for each works as master signifier. How to inscribe them within a system of norms, that is, the normal register of knotting, in an era in which the Other does not exist? The program of investigation which approaches the clinic from the concept of ordinary psychosis consists of attempting to establish a pragmatic, case by case, of how a subject comes to knot the consistencies of the real, the symbolic, and the imaginary. How does the subject interpret the body events? How does he situate the flight of meaning? How does he manage the dispersion of the imaginary in the fundamental dismemberment? How does he try to apply more or less established norms in order to lean upon the construction of something? Precisely to talk about all that is crucial for the orientation of the treatment.
In “Antibes” there were three categories: neo-conversion, neo-triggering, and neo-transference. The neo-conversion was to go from what was the opposition “hysteric conversion and hypochondriac” to a more global conception of the body event in order to explain what happens in the clinical zone that interests us: how does a subject relate to a body that is not organized by a symptom centered in the love of the father?
The neo-triggering was about seeing how to conserve at the same time clear triggering phenomena and a more lax phenomenon. It was related to a certain continuity in which the triggering seems more difficult to identify, with the perspective that it seems that it always was like that. How to conciliate these two perspectives at the same time, as there were phenomena, which were much more about changes that cannot exactly be named triggering. That is, it is not a phenomenon of collapse and almost immediately a delusion as in the acute psychosis, in which in a serene sky, from one day to the other we can go from a rupture to the construction of something surprising. It is about an unplugging phenomenon that can at the same time maintain and make compatible a perspective of discontinuity and a certain perspective of continuity.
And the neo-transference was precisely something crucial: how to interpret that very particular loop that allows the organization of a direction of the cure? Because at the end, in that last instance, it is about this: what is the direction of the cure in a subject that comes in this way?
–except from « Ordinary Psychosis, » a lecture at ICBA, Buenos Aires, November 26, 2006. Translation by Dinorah Otero.
Some Program Information
The Seminar will be held July 7-12, 2008, in Paris, France. The Seminar is cosponsored by the University of Paris VIII and the Institute of the Freudian Field. The Seminar will be conducted in English and is open to anyone from any country interested in attending.
The Seminar will be held at 31, rue de Navarin, Paris, France, 75009, close to the Saint-Georges metro stop, in the heart of Paris.
There are a limited number of registrations available for the Seminar, and there will be a regisrtation fee surcharge for registration after June 1, so we encourage anyone interested in attending to register as soon as possible.
A copy of the original announcement for the Paris English Seminar can be found at http://www.wapol.org/en/archivo/Template.asp?intTipoPagina=2&intEdicion=2&intIdiomaPublicacion=2&intArticulo=1181&intIdiomaArticulo=2&intIdiomaNavegacion=2
For further information, or a copy of the Registration Forms, send an email to Thomas Svolos at [email protected].
