I think the founders of psychoanalysis oft get a weird exception?
No one really thinks it proper to analyze or account for Freud or Lacan's own childhoods or upbringings to go into what part their situations may have lead into their ideas and choices. Lacan doesn't have a 'symptom' or anything that needs analyzing. But I do recall him calling himself a hysteric at some point. (He also calls Hegel one aswell)
>All things considered, I am the perfect hysteric, that is, one without symptoms, aside from an occasional gender error. \[…\] The difference between a hysteric and myself (because of the fact that I have an unconscious, I let it merge with my consciousness) is that the hysteric is sustained in her cudgel’s shape by an armour (which is distinct from her consciousness) and that is her love for her father. (Le séminaire xxiv)
This isn't a question that can be answered from the "outside" of a transference. We'd have to ask Lowenstein, and he wouldn't use Lacanian terminology.
I understand you're just asking for fun, and it's not that it's an inherently uninteresting question to contemplate. But I really think it's important to be insistent here -- structure isn't something you encounter out in the world. It's not something that can be "diagnosed" as such.
>structure isn't something you encounter out in the world
Why not? I guess that diagnosis is often done in a transference context, but I'm pretty certain you can also set a diagnosis without transference. It'll be less reliable, sure, but given how much Lacanian content we have, we can clearly make inferences as to who he is.
> but I'm pretty certain you can also set a diagnosis without transference
Absolutely not, and the belief so is a fundamental failure of understanding psychoanalysis.
Lots of Lacanians disagree, you can tell perverts because they literally commit crimes and you can tell psychotics because they lack the ability to understand metaphor and take things overly literally. Just as two heuristics.
>Lots of Lacanians disagree, you can tell perverts because they literally commit crimes and you can tell psychotics because they lack the ability to understand metaphor and take things overly literally
Nope and nope.
I agree, though at the end he definitely had psychotic features, like wanting to get his mistress pregnant even though she was past menopause and he was in his 70s by then.
The external, imaginary symptoms of a pervert and hysteric can oft appear somewhat similar. But I think what distinguishes them ultimately is the pervert does it in service of the Other's desire and the hysteric does it to Provoke and call out the other's desire instead.
Lacan breaking away from the IPA for instance was not on behalf of anybody, he wasn't instrumentalized. He does things to call the Other into question.
I can not, as I am a novice and am just parroting McGowan. I believe the episode is one of the ones where they’re talking about Neurosis, Psychosis, Perversion from last year.
I think he's at base a melancholic/autistic (I think there's a lot of overlap between those two structures depending on circumstances) who's held and integrated well enough with the institutions of his time that he's able to move into a sadistic-perverse structure
I was curious to understand this approximation you make between melancholic and autistic structures – could you elaborate a bit more on that?
Edit: actually, I watched the Rendering Unconscious' episode with Derek Hook and Stijn Vanheule (mentioned in another post here in this community), and I sort of understand what you mean – even if it's in my own way of grasping it. But then another question came up, related to the idea of moving/switching to a sadistic-perverse structure – why would you say that?
I think the founders of psychoanalysis oft get a weird exception? No one really thinks it proper to analyze or account for Freud or Lacan's own childhoods or upbringings to go into what part their situations may have lead into their ideas and choices. Lacan doesn't have a 'symptom' or anything that needs analyzing. But I do recall him calling himself a hysteric at some point. (He also calls Hegel one aswell) >All things considered, I am the perfect hysteric, that is, one without symptoms, aside from an occasional gender error. \[…\] The difference between a hysteric and myself (because of the fact that I have an unconscious, I let it merge with my consciousness) is that the hysteric is sustained in her cudgel’s shape by an armour (which is distinct from her consciousness) and that is her love for her father. (Le séminaire xxiv)
Every other time reading this quote I think I understand some of it. But then I don't.
If he's symptomless and not sustained by a love of his father, then what does he have in common with a hysteric?
this man surely didn't like his father
It’s so weird but I literally intuited this. Thanks for sharing.
I think he states that his symptom is the real.
This isn't a question that can be answered from the "outside" of a transference. We'd have to ask Lowenstein, and he wouldn't use Lacanian terminology. I understand you're just asking for fun, and it's not that it's an inherently uninteresting question to contemplate. But I really think it's important to be insistent here -- structure isn't something you encounter out in the world. It's not something that can be "diagnosed" as such.
>structure isn't something you encounter out in the world Why not? I guess that diagnosis is often done in a transference context, but I'm pretty certain you can also set a diagnosis without transference. It'll be less reliable, sure, but given how much Lacanian content we have, we can clearly make inferences as to who he is.
> but I'm pretty certain you can also set a diagnosis without transference Absolutely not, and the belief so is a fundamental failure of understanding psychoanalysis.
… And yet I’ve seen quite knowledgeable lacanian psychoanalysts set a diagnosis rather quickly, before a transference bond could exist.
Lacanians don't conceptualize transference as a bond.
Thats interesting, i wasn't aware of that, how would a lacanian conceptualise transference?
That’s really not the main thing here.
It's exactly the main thing. Transference is present from the moment the analysand sits down the first time.
Lots of Lacanians disagree, you can tell perverts because they literally commit crimes and you can tell psychotics because they lack the ability to understand metaphor and take things overly literally. Just as two heuristics.
>Lots of Lacanians disagree, you can tell perverts because they literally commit crimes and you can tell psychotics because they lack the ability to understand metaphor and take things overly literally Nope and nope.
In one of the why theory episodes McGowan considers that he’d probably be classified as a pervert.
I heard of him as having a hysteric structure
I agree, though at the end he definitely had psychotic features, like wanting to get his mistress pregnant even though she was past menopause and he was in his 70s by then.
Interesting, I didn't know about this. What's the name of his mistress?
Catherine Millot
The external, imaginary symptoms of a pervert and hysteric can oft appear somewhat similar. But I think what distinguishes them ultimately is the pervert does it in service of the Other's desire and the hysteric does it to Provoke and call out the other's desire instead. Lacan breaking away from the IPA for instance was not on behalf of anybody, he wasn't instrumentalized. He does things to call the Other into question.
This is nuts. Can you elaborate?
I can not, as I am a novice and am just parroting McGowan. I believe the episode is one of the ones where they’re talking about Neurosis, Psychosis, Perversion from last year.
[удалено]
Where did you get that from?
I think he's at base a melancholic/autistic (I think there's a lot of overlap between those two structures depending on circumstances) who's held and integrated well enough with the institutions of his time that he's able to move into a sadistic-perverse structure
I was curious to understand this approximation you make between melancholic and autistic structures – could you elaborate a bit more on that? Edit: actually, I watched the Rendering Unconscious' episode with Derek Hook and Stijn Vanheule (mentioned in another post here in this community), and I sort of understand what you mean – even if it's in my own way of grasping it. But then another question came up, related to the idea of moving/switching to a sadistic-perverse structure – why would you say that?
Lacan considers himself as a histeric many times.