It is true that I was surpris by this observation and I express my astonishment: our male colleagues spoke of the crossing of the fantasy as a moment and precisely in this current moment of their teaching; this evening was precisely an opportunity for them to do this reading after the fact. However, we all have in mind female testimonies which evoke, in the analysis itself, this sudden moment of the fall of the object which suddenly l to the deconstruction of the fantasy, of the fiction, thus revealing the logic which was at work in this assembly. I myself spoke of this flash moment in my first testimonies. More recently, Hélène Guilbaud made it the title of her presentation at Journées 46, “In a flash”, and she show very well how its entire construction, by disintegrating, was logically order.
Lacan says of women that they have nothing to lose
Is it this relationship to the phallus that makes the difference between our female and male AE colleagues concerning their relationship to fantasy and the object? This is a lead. I think that this question is to be put to mobile database work in the AE laboratory.
HB : For those who would think that one can separate the knowlge extract from an analytical journey carri out to its conclusion from clinical teachings articulat to a semantics of symptoms, these evenings provide a formidable denial. They are, in fact, places of transmission of a precise, audacious clinic. Would climbing shadow fight 2 — rental secrets the desire to elucidate what is at the heart of the analytical experience join the heart of clinical research in a burning question?
SC : If there is a real craze for these AE evenings, it is because this is the living material of psychoanalysis. What is said there, what is develop there, can touch each analysand, whether they are at the beginning of their analysis or approaching the end.
The presentations, the discussion
the questions from the audience, all of this contributes to a work in progress. Each AE exposes themselves, advances, can contradict themselves. For example, in the argument of this evening, we could read that the end of the book your list analysis l to an “I am that”. However, finally, and fortunately, none of our AE colleagues said “I am that” but rather “That’s it, I’m dealing with that”, which is not at all the same thing! The sinthome is not an identification, it is not a nomination. Basically, at the end of the analysis, what we grasp are clues, clues of the traumatic shock of lalangue on the body, there is no last word.