top of page

Chapter 6: The Structure of the Psychoanalytic Discourse, is Interpretation

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.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to theletter.ie to keep reading this exclusive post.

Related Posts

See All
A Perfect Construction

This fore-tale to the Táin Bó Cualnge is a 9th century representation of an event in the 7th century when the poets of Ireland set about...

 
 
What’s Love Got to Do with It?

The mother-son relationship is examined with reference to Freud’s texts - including On Narcissism and Female Sexuality- and Lacan’s terms...

 
 
Issue 63: Editorial

Issue 63 opens with another remarkable chapter – this time the concluding chapter - of Christian Fierens’ The Psychoanalytic Discourse: A...

 
 
bottom of page