Chapter 6: The Structure of the Psychoanalytic Discourse, is Interpretation
- Christian Fierens
- Oct 1, 2016
- 53 min read
Updated: May 23, 2023
The Letter, Issue 63, Autumn 2016, Pages 4 - 39
THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE. A SECOND READING Of LACAN’S L’ÉTOURDIT
Christian Fierens
C. Fierens, Le discours psychanalytique. Une deuxième lecture de l’étourdit de Lacan. Toulouse, Point hors ligne, Erès, 2012. Trans. C. Gallagher 2014.
TABLE OF CONTENTS[1]
Presentation
Introduction: The differance
1 THE ROLES OF THE ANALYST
The analyst who knows. The dogmatic analyst
The analyst who does not know. The sceptical analyst
The analyst who tracks stating. The dynamic analyst
The analyst who says what there is. The analyst as witness
2 THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE Without resources
With resilience
‘There is no sexual relationship’
or the development of the matheme of the impossible The undecidable Conclusion
3 THE LOGICS OF SEXUATION The ‘masculine phallic formulae’ The question of the subject
The impasse
The ‘feminine phallic formulae’
4 THE STUFF OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE AND ITS CUT The philosophical discourse and the psychoanalytic discourse:
the same stuff
The cut-the stitch, the effacing of the psychoanalytic discourse
The novelty of the psychoanalytic discourse Saying privileged in the psychoanalytic discourse
5 THE SENSE OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE The comfort and the impossibility of the psychoanalytic group The rejected psychoanalyst
The directive idea of the psychoanalytic discourse
The psychoanalytic discourse as compared to the other discourses
6 THE STRUCTURE OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE, IS INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Between meaning and absence, the flickering of sense Structure
The equivocation of interpretation
The three kernel-points of equivocation
and the psychoanalytic discourse as Borromean PERSPECTIVES FOR THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE
CHAPTER 6
THE STRUCTURE OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC
DISCOURSE, IS INTERPRETATION
BETWEEN MEANING AND ABSENCE, THE FLICKERING OF SENSE
The psychoanalytic discourse has no stuff, no consistency outside the established discourses. What is neither an hysterical discourse, a magisterial discourse nor an academic discourse is quite simply not a discourse. The discourse of science is inscribed in the hysterical discourse, the capitalist discourse is inscribed in the magisterial discourse, the psychological discourse is inscribed in the academic discourse, etc. Psychoanalytic discourse resists being preferentially inscribed in any one whatsoever of these three established discourses. And it nevertheless cannot ever escape from them on pain of losing all consistency.
How situate it?
We are always already engaged in the perspective of the universal proper to the concept. Whatever we say, because saying always involves the universal.