of the New Lacanian School
30th May 2009
ULU, Malet St. London WC1, at 2pm in room 2A (2nd Floor)
Last Seminar in the Series:
Richard Klein: "My practice has been forcing me to think about it for the last little while, and it has now been floated in the School as revelation. Obviously, others have been thinking about it as well. There’s not that much said about it yet. Is there a place for it in a seminar on interpretation? In so far as there be an interpretation that supports revelation, there is a place for it. Interpretation is a functor of revelation. (JAM, 1/4/09). What is that interpretation?"
Vincent Dachy: "Allusion, Actualisation and Off-cuts."
Lacanian Interpretation: How come I suffer the way I do?
There is a question of this kind at the beginning of an analysis. How do we hear such a question? How do we interpret such a request? Can we, should we answer it? Perhaps, the psychoanalyst is an expert after all and has got all the answers!? Ready-made answers for average individuals? Well, if the psychoanalyst knows something it must be that there is an incommensurability between the average normality and the singularity of a so-called individual. So, the psychoanalyst does not resort to a Big Book where all the answers are already written but will invite the analysand to open his/her own book! And they’ll start reading. It’s called interpreting. But what could interpreting be if it is not telling someone what something means? That is precisely what the NLS Seminar will tackle next year. We have to face the fact that interpretation in psychoanalysis is not the same as what it is in philosophy, religion or therapy. To face that fact and to account for it! During seven seminars we will address fundamental aspects of the practice of Lacanian analysis, which make it different from any other talking cure. What do we listen to? Who knows what’s important? Who decides what means something, and what something means? What is the authority in psychoanalysis? What do we hope for, expect from meaning? Is there something beyond or after meaning - if anything at all? This is nothing short of questioning the causality by which Lacanian psychoanalysis abides.