A psychoanalysis, an experience of speech bas on the ambiguities of the analysand’s language, implies the hypothesis of the unconscious as a text to be decipher, “structur like a language”, according to Lacan’s formula guarantee of speech . But the drive dimension of the unconscious, devot from the beginning of his teaching to the instance of the letter, brings out the materiality of language.
Éric Laurent suggests that, in the first part of his teaching, Lacan makes the reading of the unconscious text “an experience of the multiple” (2) , due to the identifications that are reveal over the course of the treatment, as repressions are gradually lift.
Then in the second part of his teaching
Lacan will, he tells us, place greater emphasis on the importance of handling ambiguity. This is bas on the materiality of “the letter that articulates the text, is woven into the cracks that open up in speech” (3) . For Éric accurate clean numbers list from frist database Laurent, this will allow Lacan to move from the guarantee found in the Name-of-the-Father to another guarantee that clings to the writing of jouissance, on the pulsional ges of the body. The body, as Other, becomes the place of a regulation.
The letter as a support for concrete discourse
The dimension of writing in the analytic experience summons both the unconscious text and the letter. Lacan will emphasize the difficulty of reading the text, going so far as to speak of the written as “not to be read”. Concerning one-to-one stay: is it really all year round? the letter, Éric Laurent remind us of the definition given by Lacan in the Écrits : “we designate by letter this material support that concrete discourse borrows from language.” (4) The letter is therefore a support and later, Lacan will speak of a hook. It is the letter as a support that allows the infinite sliding of meanings, through the two mechanisms of metaphor and metonymy that pad the associative “collar” of the analysand.
It is therefore no longer a question
of an unconscious already there. Metaphors and metonymies are as many points of padding tying together jouissance and desire. To speak of “concrete discourse” implies refusing any essentialization of the unconscious. The unconscious is not a language beyond language – no metalanguage – it is articulat concretely in the discourse of the subject. And, unlike the poetic text which reveals meaning, the unconscious book your list operates by encoding, thanks to the same mechanisms of metaphor and metonymy. However, we can bring together the poetic text and the text of the unconscious insofar as they are a “phonic matter” within which “words play all by themselves” as Jacques-Alain Miller was able to put forward in his course of December 1995. Eric Laurent emphasizes that the unconscious is here grasp not only as syntax but as vibrant matter: reson, Lacan would say.