精神病 345

精神病 345

In short, this case demonstrates very well the connection between the register
of paternity and the blossoming of revelations, of annunciations regarding
generation, namely, precisely what the subject is literally unable to conceive
– and it’s not by chance that I use this word. The question of generation, a
term of alchemical speculation, is always there ready to emerge as a response
by detour, as an attempt to reconstitute what isn’t receivable for the psychotic
subject, for the ego whose power is invoked without his being strictly
speaking capable of a response.


Henceforth, beyond every signifier able to be significant for the subject,
the only response can be the permanent and, I would say, constantly sensitized
employment of the signifier as a whole. We can in fact observe that the
memorizing commentary accompanying all human acts immediately finds itself
revived, spoken out loud in the emptiest and the most neutral of forms, and
becomes the ordinary mode of relation of an ego unable to find its respondent
in the signifier at the level from which it’s interpellated.


Precisely because he is interpellated on terrain where he is unable to respond,
the only way to react that can reattach him to the humanization he is tending
to lose is to make himself permanently present in this slender commentary
on the stream of life that constitutes the text of mental automatism. The
subject who has crossed this limit no longer has the customary significant
security, except through the accompaniment of a constant commentary on
his gestures and acts.


These phenomena present an exceedingly rich character in the case of President
Schreber, but they are not specific to him since they enter into the very
definition of mental automatism. This justifies the use of the word automatism,
of which so much use has been made in mental pathology without one’s
really knowing what one was saying. The term has a fairly precise sense in
neurology where it characterizes certain phenomena of liberation, but its
employment by analogy in psychiatry remains problematic at the very least.


It’s nevertheless the most appropriate word in de Cllrambault’s theory if you think of the distinction, completely forgotten today, that Aristotle makes
between automaton and fortune.12 If we go straight to the signifier, that is to
say on this occasion with all the reservations that such a reference comprises,
straight to etymology, we see that automaton is what really thinks by itself
without any link to that beyond, the ego, which gives thought its subject. If
language speaks all alone, the occasion to use the term automatism is now or
never, and this is what gives the term de Cterambault used its resonance of
authenticity, its satisfying side for us.



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: