精神病 270

精神病 270

M. Emil Ludwig wrote a book against Freud, almost defamatory in its
unfairness, in which he evokes the impression of delusional alienation that
one is supposed to get from reading him.81 should almost say that I prefer
such a testimony to the wearing down of the angles, to the softening, reductive
smoothing out being brought about by analytic literature claiming to
follow Freud. The incomprehension, the refusal, the shock displayed by Emil
Ludwig – whether he’s being honest or acting in bad faith doesn’t matter to
us much – is greater testimony than the disintegration of Freud’s work that
is being achieved in the decadence analysis is sliding into.


How has it been possible to omit the fundamental role of the structure of
the signifier? Of course, we understand why. What is expressed within the
apparatus and the play of signifiers is something that comes from the bowels
of the subject, which can be called his desire. As soon as this desire is caught
up in the signifier it’s a signified desire. And thus we are all fascinated by the
meaning of this desire. And we forget, despite Freud’s reminders, the apparatus
of the signifier.


精神病 270
Freud emphasizes, however, that the elaboration of the dream is what makes
the dream the leading model of symptom formation. Now, this elaboration
bears a strong resemblance to a logical and grammatical analysis, just slightly
more erudite than what we did at school. This register is the normal level of
Freudian work. It’s the very register that makes linguistics the most advanced
of the human sciences, provided one is simply prepared to acknowledge that
what is distinctive about positive science, modern science, isn’t quantification
but mathematization and specifically combinatory, that is to say linguistic,
mathematization which includes series and iteration.


This is what stands out in Freud’s work. Without it nothing of what he
subsequently develops is so much as thinkable.


I’m not alone in saying this. We have recently published the first volume
of the journal in which we inaugurate our attempt to renew the Freudian
inspiration, and you can read there that at the bottom of the Freudian mechanisms
one rediscovers these old figures of rhetoric which over time have
come to lose their sense for us but which for centuries elicited a prodigious
degree of interest. Rhetoric, or the art of oration, was a science and not just
an art. We now wonder, as if at an enigma, why these exercises could have
captivated whole groups of men for such a long time. If this is an anomaly
it’s analogous to the existence of psychoanalysts, and it’s perhaps the same
anomaly that’s involved in man’s relationships to language, returning over
the course of history, recurrently, with different ramifications and now presenting
itself to us from a scientific angle in Freud’s discovery. Freud
encountered it in his medical practice when he came upon this field in which
the mechanisms of language can be seen to dominate and organize the construction
of certain so-called neurotic disorders, unbeknown to the subject,
outside his conscious ego.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: