Jacques Alain Miller You May Know How We Analyse at the Ecole de La Cause Freudienne

7/29/2019 Jacques Alain Miller You May Know How We Analyse at the Ecole de La Cause Freudienne

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jacques-alain-miller-you-may-know-how-we-analyse-at-the-ecole-de-la-cause-freudienne 1/15

NLS Messager 69

Jacques-Alain Miller - "You may know how we analyse...":

Presentation of the Theme

for the 2001 ECF Study Days

We are now ending the series of texts “Towards London" with a text by

Jacques-Alain Miller, published in

the small volume we have takenfrom before. “Liminaire des XXX

Journées de l’Ecole de la Cause

freudienne”.

The theme of those Study Days, which was quite close to the theme of our

LondonCongress,

was presented by Jacques-Alain Miller a year before. We are interested in

his introduction at

several levels. He gives enlightening formulations about the analytical act

and the necessity

to publicly reflect on it, about the analyst and the School, and about

therapeutic care and

applied psychoanalysis. I invite you to discover it by yourself; I have no

doubt that it will

inspire you to prepare for our meeting next weekend in London, on "How

Psychoanalysis

Works".

Anne Lysy

28 March 2011

PRESENTATION OF THE THEME OF THE 2001 ECF STUDY DAYS

Jacques-Alain Miller

Paris, October 22, 2000

“You may know how we analyse at the Ecole de la Cause freudienne.”

This title – how to say it – has a lot of nerve. This title is adventurous. As

we say with the Marseillaise

when it appeared on the world‟s scene, it‟s got balls [des moustaches].

With this title the School, Ecole de

la Cause freudienne by name, sets itself a challenge. Circumstances mean

that the Study Days thus

announced, will be at the level of all or nothing for the School. It is a matter

of an entrance examination, an

ability test, a real pass for the School as experience. Is the Ecole de la

Cause Freudienne today, will it be

tomorrow, a School of psychoanalysis? The fact that the question arises

today means something for

tomorrow. The question is posed by the School to the School, yet the

answer is not in its hands: it is to

come from the You that the School invites to participate in its debate, the

You who may want to know for

real how we analyse when we are from the Ecole de la Cause freudienne.

This You, who is it? It could be

everyone who hurries to the Study Days of the Ecole de la Cause

freudienne without belonging for all that

to this School, which claims to be of psychoanalysis. It is to this You,

supposed to be coming from the

outside that it would like to hand over the question of whether or not it is up

to its pretences.

On 15 January 1964, Jacques Lacan began his eleventh Seminar

announcing he would deal with the

foundations of psychoanalysis and he was asking: “What authorises me?”

He did not feel belittled putting the question, although at this time he had

already given no

less than ten Seminars and a written work, thereby constituting last

century‟s major

elaboration of psychoanalysis.

Not only did he raise this question and did not feel belittled, he also held

the answer in suspense until he

had proven it in front of an audience that had changed and thus he needed

to speak from a place that was no

longer the same, having been outlawed from what was then the

psychoanalytic community. By welcoming

thischallenge, nevertheless the most unfair imaginable, having transformed

it into his own task and having NLS Messager 69

achieved this task in front of his audience, he could, in the last week of this

Seminar announce that he was

creating a School intended to returning the practice of psychoanalysis “to

its duty”, the duty expected to

return to our world.

The Ecole de la Cause freudienne is proud to proceed with this act of

foundation. It will soon be twenty

years old. Time has come now for it to assume the question of its

authorisation. What would make it, more

than others, capable of denouncing “the deviations and compromises that

dull the progress (of

psychoanalysis) by degrading its use”? Is the School in line with its

mission?

Today, nobody would know how to question the aptitude of the Ecole de la

Cause freudienne – but it itself.

Because the community of psychoanalysis no longer exists. It no longer exists as one, as was the case still

in 1964. The time that Lacan was announcing, by underlining that “the

analyst is authorised only by

himself” is done. The attempt of the International Association of

Psychoanalysis (IPA), to reserve the

monopoly of the analyst‟s qualification failed. On the one hand, anyone,anywhere, can call himself a

psychoanalyst. On the other hand, the most advanced sectors of this

International Association that have

banned Lacan and his School, are now feeding on Lacan‟s work, and

associating with his disciples. Must

we think that all is well?

Asinus asinum fricat, one mule scrubs the other. “You are a psychoanalyst,

I am a psychoanalyst.” –

“Mister psychoanalyst, I presume? – Sir, you are another one.” – “I‟m

okay, you are okay.” (this is the

principle of psychotherapy that had its glory days when it was called

transactional analysis.) It could be that

it is on this basis, of seeing the complicity of other imposters of the same

calibre, that at present a

community tries to rebuild itself, a community that would be

psychoanalytic by not breathing a word of

what authorises anyone to call himself psychoanalyst outside of

complaisance. The question of “what

authorises me?” will not come from there.

It is from this easy option, of this real Verleugnung, that the Ecole de la

Causefreudienne intends to

distinguish itself by temporarily suspending its collective capacity to

qualify psychoanalysts – subject to

making it a public demonstration, that is to say to impose a task on itself

that would not be unworthy of

being compared to the one gone through by the so called AEs, the ones

Lacan allotted it to, to “save the

honour”, namely the Analysts of the School, analysands supposed to have

conducted their analysis to its

logical conclusion and who along with testifying the result, letting in on a

special experiment, the Pass,

make the sometimes brilliant benefit of their work public.

This is what is done at the ECF. Only a puzzling institutional aberration

reserves the Study Days of the AEs

for a much more restricted audience than this one, and during these Study

Days have only one of the so

called AE in function speak in a plenary session. It is nevertheless to them

especially that Lacan intended to

entrust the responsibility to interpret the experience of the School.

At the Ecole de la Cause freudienne nobody is complaisant and it will

prepare itself, at the initiative of its

Council, chaired by its Executive, for the task of next year‟s Study Days

where it will meet with itself for a

„dropping of masks‟.

It could happen, as in a new Alphonse Allais version of the Opera Ball,

that, in horror, it does not recognise

itself.

“I am not what you think.” – never mind. The risk is not to be what it

thought. Then, for once, semblants

would vacillate.

Vacillation would not leave the You invited to the party, unharmed – the

You who would notice, maybe,

that beneath the mask he himself dropped, it was not him either.

Nevertheless, tribute is to be given to a School that, by its most

representative organ, its Council, then

chaired by our colleague Yasmine Grasser, does not recoil from facing the

challenge thus given to it – at a

time where no one thinks anymore to challenge anyone on the qualification

of psychoanalyst, while

numerous analytical grou ps pass on their fleas in large outbursts of “Let‟s

embrace Folleville”. Which NLS Messager 69

makes the questioning urgent that insures that the title of our next Study

Days is not under suspicion to

have come from the outside.

It is within what is most assented in our practice that the demand arises to

report and thereby evaluate

whether or not, or in which measure, this organism that we call the School

is able to train psychoanalysts

and to control, evaluate and guarantee this training.

The guarantees this School enjoys, which stem from its history, from its

associations with other Schools in

the World Association of Psychoanalysis and on the other side, the

recognition of guarantees a large public

gives it, captured by the work it brings under one roof, all those guarantees

are nothing withregards to a

higher demand, which is to play its part in the right way in relation to

psychoanalytic discipline itself – let‟s

say, the idea of psychoanalysis, if it existed.

It has been a long time since the question tormented anyone to know what

authorises anyone to cause

transference phenomena and suggestion by listening. It is because today psychoanalysis is everywhere that

it could be that it is nowhere. With regards to us, let‟s k eep this answer

suspended until we can demonstrate

the validity of our pretensions.

Study Days will probably not be enough, but they start the process of

verification that we are calling on,

now at the threshold of the second century of psychoanalysis. Jacques

Lacan was able to write, long ago, in

1958 that a “mystery remains (…) with regard to the conditions in which

the heritage of a discipline that a

field engenders is protected” – the Freudian field – “where the practitioner

himself needs to be at the level

of the subject (…) of speech, that is to say as emerging at the dimension of

truth.” After having recognised

in Freud the instant concern (sic) to found a community that will carryoutthis protection, he tried a few

years later (1964) to dissipate this mystery by creating an hitherto unknown

community of psychoanalysis,

a School namely, that he will vow to an infinite quest in 1967, which means

that of a series, of persuading a

subject that he has the qualification of a psychoanalyst.

Is this qualification taken for granted once and for all? We know a School

canfall from grace [déchoir],

since before passing away Lacan took care to dissolve the one he founded.

It being a subject, it could be

that his qualification as analyst supposes he incessantly do the pass and that

the pass is only the name of a

narrow door opening to a series of tasks. Which are at the level of the

subject, emerging in the dimension of

truth, only being able to speak [énoncer] with an element of risk, that of

demeaning himself [déchoir]. Of

course, Lacan corrects this later on, it is at the level of the object, not the

subject, that an analysis is at the

right place in practice but when he speaks as the one who teaches and

testifies, nothing protects him at all

from the risk of saying [dire], not even the quotation of good authors, who

rather denounce the fact that the

impact of the saying doesn‟t go with the said [les dits].

Is the protection of the heritage of the discipline engendered by the

Freudian field assumed by the ECF?

This is what will be evaluated. This is to say:

1 – Whether or not the difference between true and false psychoanalysis is

made - to take the title of a

writing by Lacan that I quoted?

2 - Whether or not the difference between pure and applied psychoanalysis

is made?

- Those two differences are not to be confused, they are to be separated:

- applied psychoanalysis is not false psychoanalysis;

- pure psychoanalysis is not true psychoanalysis;

- but it is false not to distinguish between pure psychoanalysis and applied

psychoanalysis;NLS Messager 69

- and once again: it is false to identify pure psychoanalysis with private

practice with a couch and applied

psychoanalysis with the practice in institutions.

The opposition of true and false psychoanalysis was made by Lacan for the

purpose of stigmatising the

renunciation of the principles of analytical discipline, and the deviation

from its practice “for purposes of

social suggestion and psychological submission.” A practice preserving all

appearances of psychoanalysis,

its semblants, can slide into being no more than a “corrective pedagogy”, or

an “authoritarian

psychotherapy”. Nothing is closer to psychoanalysis than its reverse, the

Master‟s discourse, it is enough to

let go of analytic discourse for it to reverse, because it is the Master‟sdiscourse that fits the unconscious,

not the analyst‟s discourse. Transference is only suggestion, in its own

analysis (the analysis of suggestion).

It is precisely because listening causes the repetition of the demand that an

effect of suggestion is produced.

If this effect is not analysed, but used, the listening practices naturally tendtowards the reinforcement of

the Master‟s discourse. And this is what we witness all over: the

generalisation of the listening practices,

which without doubt attests to the massive impact psychoanalysis has on

civilisation, with the result of a

reinforcement, or proliferation, of the Master‟s discourse.

The irony is that the triumph of psychoanalysis, the dropping of its mask,

reveals its true face: the Master‟s

discourse triumphs, and even more so when it drags the signifier of the

psychoanalyst with it. If the Other

doesn‟t exist, the Master‟s discourse exists well and good.

The opposition of pure and applied psychoanalysis is something else. It

takes its meaning from the reversal

operated by Lacan, that leads to making analysis produce an analyst, “the

perfect form of psychoanalysis”,

its pure form. Whence it appears that applied psychoanalysis is all forms of

psychoanalysis, and even all

moments of the analytic experience, where “therapeutic care” predominates

over separating the subject

from the signifiers that cover him, in order to disengage him from hisfantasy, in the end.

Thus I understand by applied psychoanalysis, psychoanalysis restricted to

therapeutics, justifying, as Lacan

writes in the Ecrits, “short-circuits, or temperaments”. Applied

psychoanalysis is each time the analyst

holds back Diana‟s dogs, because not all subjects can bear to be devoured.

Not too long ago I was told that the EOL and the EBP intended to have a

conference with the title

“Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy”. The title appearing overworked, I

suggested in the same mood:

“When the subject is worse….” – implying: what are you doing,

practitioner? Hic Rhodus, hic saltus [sic]:

this is where the separation between the pure form and the applied form of

psychoanalysis is most certain,

the one that dominates “therapeutic care”.

How do we analyse? What do we do with the therapeutic demand – which

is the initial demand, the

demand justifying an analysis, the one the symptom and the belief in the

symptom imposes? Demand

naturally introduces suggestion. This is what legitimises psychiatry

(reduced to being the slave of

molecular biology) to want to be the master of psychotherapy in

compensation (authoritarian

psychotherapy). It would begood to know how to differentiate the use of

the master-signifier in

authoritarian psychotherapy and its use in applied psychoanalysis.

“You may know”: the title of the Study Days brings us back to the sentence

Lacan adorned the cover of his

journal Scilicet with: “You may know what the Ecole freudienne de Paris

thinks”.

This “You may know” is also what promises a psychoanalysis: “You may,

if you have the desire, shed light

on the unconscious of which you are the subject” (Lacan says it to his

interlocutor in Television). Put into a

journal of the School of which the texts were presented under one collective

signature, it was to show what

it means to be part of a group when it is given its true scope: it includes co-

responsibility.

Not only the responsibility of the development of the School, corporation,

but also the co-responsibility of

what others from this School dream up, write, profess, the co-responsibility

of what they do and as analysts

in the first place.NLS Messager 69

How do we analyse at the ECF? How can we know it? First by its

analysands, and it is in this capacity that

the AEs are invited to testify. But it should also be by its analysts, who

analyse under the aegis of the

School, whose training and practice it guarantees. And at these Study Days

as well, the School invites the

practitioner who claims to be one, to elaborate how he analyses, and to be

supervised by the You of the

You may know, to have his act supervised by exposing himself.

We did not wait for the 2001 Study Days to do this, of course. This is the

exploit of each of our Study

Days, and especially this one, the organisation of which is due to Catherine

Bonningue. But until now the

exposition of the case veiled the “exposure” of the practitioner, leaving it

implicit. This is what the next

Study Days would like to make explicit and that is why it is not excessive

to saythat such a challenge is

new. Until then, it remains for us to elaborate how to approach “the

confession of the analyst” in the right

way – always repeating their pass.

It may be that You are curious to know, for example, how it can happen

that the reduction of the lack

necessary for correctly occupying the place of the analyst, the fall of ideals

that this reduction takes away,

nevertheless leaves something produced that could be called psychoanalysis

as passion, a psychoanalysispassion. “Psychoanalysis, my partner -ravage!”

Passion is compatible with the absence of hope because the absence of hope

leads the being to confuse

himself with his will. This is perhaps the principal demand of

psychoanalysis itself as far as it corresponds

to what can be called the principle of radical responsibility. Lacan wrote in

“Science and Truth”, page 729:

“One is always responsible for one‟s position as a subject”.

Is it terrorism? Following in the tracks of a colleague from the EOL who

recentlypassed away, Javier

Aramburu, to whom I paid tribute in Buenos Aires, I realised that this

statement of Lacan‟s was echoing

Freud‟s, precisely the paper of 1925 where he holds that it goes without

saying that we impute the subject

with an ethical responsibility, Die sittliche Verantwortung, for the content

of his dreams.“The content of

the dream, he says, is a piece of my being. What I have renounced in me is

me, and acts on occasion

through me.” Psychoanalysis entails that the ethical responsibility of the

subject extends to the

unconscious. It is at this level that we need to find the resource – each one

for himself, but also each coresponsible for his fellow sufferers - to re-

invent psychoanalysis in these times of distress.

It is encouraging, according to a great artist, who, at the very moment

where he put himself in the position

of teaching, displayed his condescension of everything that is School, I

quote Gustave Courbet: “The

history of an era finishes with that very era and with those representatives

of it who interpreted it. It is not

the responsibility of a new era to add something to the interpretation of the

old one, to widen or embellish

the past. What has been, has been. The human spirit has the duty to always

work from scratch, always in

the present, starting from known results. We should never repeat anything,

but always march (….) from

conclusion to conclusion.”

Translated from the French by Tracy Favre

Jacques Alain Miller You May Know How We Analyse at the Ecole de La Cause Freudienne

Documents

Transcript of Jacques Alain Miller You May Know How We Analyse at the Ecole de La Cause Freudienne

Psychanalyse et religion: destin d'une anticipation freudienne

Comportement géochimique des radionucléides a l'amont de l ......Contrat CNEXO no 82/6844 RAPPORT FINAL Alain J. THOMAS Institut de Biogéochimie Marine Ecole Normale Supérieure

Bibliothèque de ciation Cause freudienne Massif …data.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/56/03/47/20160109/ob_a32737_catalogue-de... · Collectif s/dir Miller Jacques-Alain, L'anti-livre noir

Alain Abran - iceaaonline.com · HOW GOOD AN ESTIMATION PROCESS? ICEAA International Training Week October 17-20, 2016, Bristol (UK) Alain Abran Ecole de technologie supérieure –

Ecole de Maistrance

Plaquette du programme Grande Ecole de Grenoble Ecole de Management

Ecole E Brochure

2006 FILLES - MEISJES · 2018-10-14 · 30 BORIBON Dorian Ecole Saint-Henri 31 TOREBKO Michal Ecole Princesse Paola 32 DEVIS Clément Ecole Parc Schuman 33 MILLAN ALVAREZ Thomas Ecole

Noël Danger Ecole

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE ILLICIT TRAFFICKING OF …€¦ · • According to Alain Godonou, former Director of the Ecole du patrimoine africain(EPA) and now ... Razzia sur l’art, Paris,

Les perspectives et l'évolution de la fabrication additive...Source : ISO 17296-2:2014E ... Ecole Polytechnique, AEPR 2015 Prof. Alain BERNARD 30 . La complexité sans surcoût 13/12/2018

Ecole Nationale d’administration

Institut de genie nucl´ eaire´ Ecole Polytechnique de ... · Neutron leakage Alain Hebert´ alain.hebert@polymtl.ca Institut de genie nucl´ eaire´ Ecole Polytechnique de Montr´

Ecole Maternelle Pajol

Ecole des Roche

Journées of the Ecole Freudienne de Paris 12/13 April 1975

ALTHUSSER’S LESSON...Also available from Continuum: Being and Event, Alain Badiou Conditions, Alain Badiou Inﬁ nite Thought, Alain Badiou Logics of Worlds, Alain Badiou Theoretical

Ecole model united nations 2013 - Ecole Mondiale

Ecole Saint-Avila

Contentchimie.ucv.ro/departament/documente/anale-nr2-2017.pdf · Alain Fruchier- Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Montpellier, France ... Cluj-Napoca Anca Cojocaru - Politehnica