The London Society

of the New Lacanian School

---

Research Seminar

From the Early to the Late Lacan on Psychosis

Richard Klein

“Produced
in a linguistics of speech and action, the language acts of the
psychotic subject modify the language he uses to the point that the new
language modified by language acts can take on board the meaningless
messages that were circulating outside any norm.”

Evening of the "Youngsters of the
WAP"

28th
January 2013

ECF
– Paris at 21h15

First
evening dedicated to the theme of the WAP Congress 2014

During
this evening proposed by the Council of the World Association of Psychoanalysis
(WAP), each member of the group "Youngsters of the WAP"* will
articulate, from his or her singular voice, what the theme of the WAP Congress
in Paris in 2014 –A real for the 21st
century– evokes for him or her today.

The
debate will be moderated by Leonardo Gorostiza, Miquel Bassols and Guy Briole.

* Patricio Alvarez,
Déborah Gutermann-Jacquet, Anaëlle Lebovits-Quenehen, Clotilde Leguil, Patricia
Moraga, Silvia Nieto, Laura Petrosino, Aurélie Pfauwafel, LéonoraTroianoski,
Manuel Zlotnik.

Soirée des "Jeunes de l'AMP"

Le
28 janvier 2013

ECF
– Paris à 21h15

Première
soirée consacrée au thème du Congrès de l’AMP 2014

Lors
de cette soirée proposée par le Conseil de l'Association Mondiale de
Psychanalyse (AMP), chaque membre du groupe "Jeunes de l'AMP"*
énoncera, à partir de sa voix singulière, ce que le thème du Congrès de l'AMP à
Paris en 2014 —Un réel pour le XXIe siècle— lui évoque aujourd'hui.

Le
débat sera animé par Leonardo
Gorostiza, Miquel Bassols et Guy Briole.

* Patricio Alvarez,
Déborah Gutermann-Jacquet, Anaëlle Lebovits-Quenehen, Clotilde Leguil, Patricia
Moraga, Silvia Nieto, Laura Petrosino, Aurélie Pfauwafel, LéonoraTroianoski,
Manuel Zlotnik.

 

 

23 – 01 – 2013

 

 

Second European Congress of Psychoanalysis

After Oedipus

The Diversity of Psychoanalytic Practice in Europe

July
6th and 7th 2013

 

At the SQUARE

Brussels Meeting Centre

Mont des Arts 1000 Bruxelles

(Glass Entrance)

 

Simultaneous translation

In Dutch, English,
French, Italian, Spanish

 

Online registration: www.europsychanalyse.eu

Enquiries : +32 (0)483 365 082
| info@europsychanalyse.eu

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________

 

 

---

Aucun
virus trouvé dans ce message.
Analyse effectuée par AVG – www.avg.fr
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Base de données virale: 2639/6052 – Date: 23/01/2013

The London Society

of the New
Lacanian
School

---

SATURDAY
16th FEBRUARY
2013

 

9:30am-10:30am

FREUD READING SEMINAR

Bogdan Wolf

‘Traces of the Unconscious’

 *
* *

2:30pm-5pm

SEMINAR OF THE NEW LACANIAN
SCHOOL IN
LONDON

Preparatory Seminar: Towards
the 11^th
Congress of
the NLS

‘What is it that we call
psychosis
today?’

*
* *

 Guest Speaker:

Martine Coussot, psychoanalyst
and
psychiatrist
[Poitiers],
member of the
ECF

 

Chair:
Roger Litten

*
* *
ULU

University of London Student
Union
Bloomsbury
Suite
Second Floor
Malet Street, London W1
*
* *

£15/£10
Concessions

---

www.londonsociety-nls.org.uk

PIPOL NEWS 17

21.01.2013

English

 

Call for papers for the simultaneous clinical sessions of
PIPOL 6

The
force of the simultaneous sessions

The simultaneous sessions of the
second European Congress of Psychoanalysis, PIPOL 6, entitled « The case,
the institution and my experience of psychoanalysis » will host a crowd
that does not speak as one voice, but with a multiplicity of singular
enunciations.  So, in accordance with the era After Oedipus, we are
interested in the diversity of the psychoanalytical practice in Europe to the
extreme of one by one.  This particular type of crowd where each one
endeavors to define what differentiates it absolutely from any other, is the
base of our « material force ».

The
psychoanalyst’s institution

 For the psychoanalyst, the
institution is a discourse, that is, a mode of social tie that the analyst
establishes in the places where the psychoanalytical act unfolds.  Behind the
couch, the analyst establishes a serious relationship with « another
scene », supports the hypothesis that the mistakes of speech « mean
something », and handles the equivocal of the signifier to produce effects
of truth.  Beside these three poles: the unconscious, the supposed subject of
knowledge and interpretation, the setting instituted by the psychoanalyst has
the particularity of leaving empty the place of the master so that the subject
can deposit  his/her own master signifiers.

Outside of
the office, the psychoanalyst is not outside of the psychoanalytical
discourse.  Analysts and analysands who work in « mental health »
institutions carry their discourse with them.  Whether master or knowledge is
embodied there is just one more given that the practitioner of psychoanalysis
has to take into consideration in calculating the action.  Moreover, this
presence of the master and of knowledge exposes the analyst to cases rarely
encountered in private practice.  Indeed, the disoriented subject, the
non-dupe, the one who can’t rhyme the enigma of his/her existence to any
signification whatsoever, comes to find in this presence a sort of social tie,
a discursive alternative that fastens to the signifier, procuring
identifications and supporting the being.

 

Behind
the screen of language

But for the psychoanalyst, the
institution is confined neither to an alienation-producing machine, nor to a
mechanism for solidifying identifications.  Once the subject has found
appeasement in a discursive setting that is supported by the common language,
psychoanalytically oriented practitioners make an effort to defend the
singularity that resists the code of the Other.  They try to read the lalangue
that precedes the subject’s speech; a letter that allows for a
symptomatic tie to be made that does without the institution as incarnated by
the master.

When the
One-all-alone meets an other

We know, since PIPOL 5, that the case
presented in our congresses does not exist as such².  It’s the
practitioner’s construction, and the practitioner is present there like
Velázquez in Las Méninas. 
It remains to be known whether this presence is that of the
practitioner’s phantasm, ideals, identifications, or if on the contrary,
it is the practitioner’s most intimate style, determined during the
traumatic encounter of the signifier with the body.  From the moment the
practitioner’s own most private singularity begins to echo in the
experience of psychoanalysis, he/she can carve out a place and handle the
singularity of the subject speaking to them.  That’s saying that the work
done in institutions begins with what the psychoanalytic experience teaches the
practitioner about his/her most authentic relationship to the real.  This
relationship to singularity and to the real, relieved of its defenses allows,
according to the case, the re-enforcement of the subject’s fastening to
the institutional Other when necessary or, supporting the subject’s work
of the letter, an elaboration of the lalangue, in order to border the
enjoyment that invades the subject³.

Invitation 

We invite
practitioners of psychoanalysis in Europe to speak as practitioner-analysands,
while tying together: the case, the institution and the practitioner’s
experience of psychoanalysis.  Those of you who wish to participate as speakers
during the simultaneous sessions are asked to illustrate a clinical event,
showing how your experience of psychoanalysis allowed you to operate with the
case and the institution, while taking the real into account as the support for
your action.

 

To
conclude, be reminded of our mobile definition of the institution.  The analyst
transports the discourse where ever like a suitcase and installs it wherever
he/she may be, with the ethic that consists in quashing the universal with the
singular⁴.  It aims at the point One-all-alone that escapes
the institution.  In consequence, all our colleagues are invited to participate
in the simultaneous sessions of PIPOL 6, even if their institution is limited
to the private practice⁵.

 

Practical
information

All the
simultaneous sessions will take place on the first day of the Congress, that is
Saturday, July 6th from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and again from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. 
Papers may be presented in any of the five languages retained for the Congress:
English, French, Spanish, Italian and Dutch.  They may be addressed at present
to Laura Petrosino, Secretary of the Simultaneous Sessions, (mlpetrosino@gmail.com), and to Gil Caroz (gil.caroz@skynet.be). Deadline for papers is
midnight, April 16th.  The papers selected, considered as a work in progress,
will receive the benefit of « mentors » so that each speaker can get
a feel for the Other and refine their work before the Congress.

Some
technical indications for papers:

–     Total
number of signs, spaces included must not exceed 9000 (15 minutes speaking
time)

–     Font type: 12
point, Times New Roman

–    
Document Format: Document Word 97-2003

–     Name
of document: NAME-LANGUAGE (example: COHEN-ENGLISH) 

–    
Centered, at the top of first page:  Title of your paper, and underneath it,
your last name followed by your first name

 

Gil
Caroz

Congress
Director

EuroFederation
of Psychoanalysis

Translation: Julia Richards

 

 

¹ MILLER J.-A., « Vers PIPOL
4 », Mental n°20, février 2008.

² MILLER J.-A., « Parler avec son
corps », Mental n°27/28, septembre 2012.

³ CAROZ G.,
« Introduction to the simultaneous clinical sessions of PIPOL 6 », PIPOL
NEWS 2, 01-11-2012

http://www.europsychoanalysis.eu/index.php/site/page/en/7/en/bulletin/#article-box-155 

⁴ LACAN J., « Lituraterre », Autres écrits,
Paris, Seuil, 2001, p. 16.

⁵ BASSOLS M., « Présence de l’institution
dans la clinique », PIPOL NEWS 4, 13-11-2012

http://www.europsychoanalysis.eu/index.php/site/page/en/7/en/bulletin/#article-box-157  

 

 

 

 

Second European Congress of Psychoanalysis

After Oedipus

The Diversity of Psychoanalytic Practice in Europe

July
6th and 7th 2013

 

At the SQUARE

Brussels
Meeting Centre

Mont des
Arts 1000 Bruxelles

(Glass
Entrance)

 

Simultaneous translation

In
Dutch, English, French, Italian, Spanish

 

Online registration: www.europsychanalyse.eu

Enquiries : +32 (0)483 365 082 | info@europsychanalyse.eu

 

__,_._,___

London Society Study Day

The Facets of Jealousy

** *

SATURDAY 15th DECEMBER 2012

The London Society and its guests congregated to consider the “The Facets of Jealousy”, to pay attention to this every-day phenomenon, that finds the subject snared in relation to his/her object and their place vis a vis the Other. The question is begged, ‘how do we approach this intimate suffering – this state of exile in which the subject finds themselves aside that which is most precious to him/her?’

The day afforded an extended moment to pore over discreet details of the irruption of jealousy from several perspectives; returning again and again to minutiae emerging in clinical sessions and subtleties long inscribed in literary treatments of its pathoi. This made for a delicately nuanced and poignant encounter while, at the same time, effecting a sustained exercise: the triggering of effort in the construction and consideration of hypotheses built on the arrangements of clues offered, with careful attention to their time, locus and interplay with a myriad of elliptical dimensions.

 ***

            Veronique Voruz’s ‘Reading Catherine M. on Jealousy’, references the extraordinary material published in two books by Catherine Millet (The Sexual Life of Catherine M., and Jealousy: The Other Life of Catherine M ) and in a public conversation that took place in Brussels in May 2012 between the author and Marie-Hélène Brousse. The enigma turns on ‘this woman, who accepted no limits on her own sexual freedom, and derived great pride from her ability to be completely sexually liberated, something which gave her something of a position of exception for men, the fact that her chosen partner of love (the man of her life) could desire other women was a source of unspeakable suffering’.

The apparent contradiction of these two facets of the life of Catherine M, yields nuances to the careful attention of the Lacanian orientation: how a particular subject strives to work a singular solution to the sexual relation that does not exist; using her body images she stages a Trompe-l’œil to render herself inviolable by impossible reals associated with speech and the social bond. Veronique Voruz reports how in her exchanges with Catherine Millet, “Marie- Hélène Brousse opposes relation and bond, stating that if the relation is possible, then there is no need for the bond, ie discourse.”

***

Bogdan Wolf posed the intricacies of the gaze in his paper: Love, Jealousy, Envy and Shame.

While noting that Freud’s own position was that the penis envy marks for a woman her position at the end of analysis, Bogdan Wolf noted that, “It is with the entry of the object onto the scene of jealousy that I want to move further towards what is called envy. Jealousy, the ‘passion of jealousy’, is linked to desire of the one who is the third one. But, discerns from various accounts “the object in the visual field…lurking behind the scenes of jealousy/love relations. He goes on to say that, “If jealousy concerns desire, envy is linked to jouissance.” Further, that, “Lacan makes a distinction between jealousy and envy, relating the latter to the gaze. In what way? In envy the subject encounters an object that is useless for the subject because it concerns possessions.”

Bogdan Wolf asks, “Where does Lacan seek the causes of envy? If I envy the Other, it is because I assume the Other to be in possession of the object that makes him or her jouir, the agalmatic object. And by this stroke I touch, Lacan says, on the image of completeness [l’image d’une completude]. When confronted with the image of the one who has the agalmatic object, the subject goes pale before this image – palir – which implies some form of recession or I would say numbing, which also happens in shame.”

***

            In speaking regarding The Other Man of her Life, Laure Naveau “elucidates what is at stake in the case of a young man who presented himself to (her) as being in the grip of a struggle between two passions: his oral object of addiction (in the form of various alcoholic drinks) and his feminine ideal, the woman of his dreams.”

Laure Naveau discerns how “(o)n the other side, there is a non-sexual choice, a choice for the a-sexuated, the a-sexué of jouissance in the form of an oral object of pleasure, where the substitutive satisfactions it gives rise to create an impasse to the Other and ensures that a kind of sexual peace reigns. Further, “because of the difficulty he had in holding the body of his sweetheart close, chose to make a body with the bottle, to the point of incorporating it.” She worked steadily to bring “to light the structure of the passage to the act in relation to the affect of jealousy that such a substitution entails.” In turn, through the course of his treatment the subject “comes to ask himself how he can stop being both the director and spectator of a scene that ravages and ravishes him, in order to be finally the actor of his life.”   

***

The afternoons proceedings opened with Pierre Naveau speaking on ‘Jealousy and the Hidden Gaze’, wherein he explored several hypotheses beginning with the idea “that the hidden gaze is the drive element that acts as the source of jealousy.” He develops this by tracing a “link between jealousy, the hidden gaze and knowledge,” siting Sartre, Proust and James Joyce’s Exiles. For the jealous man, he says, “there is a hole in knowledge…(he) doesn’t know the woman who forms the object of his jealousy and that, in the end, she remains a mystery and utterly escapes him.” He adds that, “Exile, says Lacan, is the appropriate term to express the non-sexual relation…his soul is wounded by doubt. He wants to know everything; yet, it is impossible to know everything.”

This gap in knowledge is also present in Marguerite Duras’ novel the ravishing of Lol V Stein, this time played out in a feminine subject. Watching as “a hidden gaze behind a hedge of plants”, Lol is ‘carried away’ by the ravishing display of the inseparable dancing couple, Michael Richardson and Anne Marie Stretter (‘the woman with the non-look’). “The fantasy of being-three”, Pierre Naveau proposes, “is the name Lacan gives to this type of jealousy that characterises Lol’s subjective position from this moment forth”.

With concluding references to Catherine Millet, Pierre Naveau proposes that there is “no such thing as jealousy but there are singular jealousies and, above all, that the meaning of the word jealousy is manifold. This meaning, in each case, must be reconstructed…A difference thus appears between masculine jealousy and feminine jealousy on the one hand and Freudian jealousy and Lacanian jealousy on the other. Freudian jealousy places the emphasis on projection: the jealous subject accuses the other of cheating inasmuch as, if not in act, at least in thoughts, he is himself unfaithful. Lacanian jealousy refers to the knot of subjective implication: the jealous woman for example wants to be part of it and refuses to be excluded and to be left alone. This is why the hypothesis explored in this paper is that the passion for being-three constitutes one of the symptomatic varieties of Lacanian jealousy.

***

Heather Chamberlain presented a case, posing the question: How do we work with a jealous patient? Among the valuable elements that will remain discreet, was offered a clear demonstration of how an utterance from the Other of the transference “You always have to…” lends itself to be heard by the subject of the unconscious as an imperative propelling their compulsion to repeat.

***

Betty Bertrand-Godfrey presented “A Case of Masculine Jealousy as a Name of the Father?” with reference to Freud’s 1922 paper, ‘Jealousy, Paranoia and Homosexuality’, where Freud distinguishes 3 types of jealousy (normal, projective and delusional).  Betty Bertrand-Godfrey also brought to our attention that this text is the only one from Freud that Lacan translated into French.

Normal jealousy, arises from the Oedipus complex and relates to sibling rivalry, whereby the subject believes that he has lost the loved object and has hostile feelings towards the ‘successful rival’ (Stratchey’s translation of Freud) a term translated by Lacan as ‘preferred’ [préféré] . This leads Freud to postulate that homosexual feelings are at stake in jealousy.

Projective jealousy is exemplified by the jealous spouse, unable to recognise their own desire for infidelity, is projecting it on to the other. Freud gives an indication for the treatment of these sort of cases: ‘in the treatment of a jealous person like this, one must refrain from disputing with him the material of which he bases his suspicions; one can only aim to regard the matter in a different light’. He then goes on saying that this type of jealousy is already almost delusional, hence his indication regarding the direction of the treatment. This indication has been a thread for her work with the subject of this particular case.

The third level of jealousy is veritably delusional and is the result of ‘homosexuality turned sour’ and of the fantasy ‘I don’t love him, she loves him’ a version of ‘I don’t love him, I hate him’, as elaborated in the case of President Schreber.

In turn, Lacan, for example in Seminar XX, provides us with a useful reading of what needs to be in place between a man and a woman to make do with the lack of sexual relations, that is to say love. By maintaining a constant threat, be it a rival for his women or violent men who can potentially attack him, the patient invents and maintain the existence of an all-enjoying masculine double in place of his own castration. His jealousy, a call to the father, is thus an attempt to cover the lack.”

***

For this reporter, the day of work reaffirmed one of the signatures of Lacan’s orienting labours in which we find ourselves perennially accompanied: the ongoing cultivation of dexterity with which to respond to anguish and to deal with the lacks of knowledge. If the compulsion to repeat constitutes the symptom, the shift in accent that comes to be afforded by the sinthome permits the difference that allows the again and again to become each time an event anew.

Report: Penny Georgiou

London, 2013