无意识的形成 26

无意识的形成 26

37.11.57 1
Seminar 3: 20 november ,1957

We have approached our task then by way of the witticism, the
first example of which we began to analyse the last day, the one
that Freud made his own in the famillionaire joke, while at the
same time attributing it to Hirsch-Hyacinth, himself a very
significant poetic creation.


It is not by chance that it is
against this background of poetic creation that Freud chose his
first example, and that we ourselves have found, as is usually
the case, that this original example turned out to be
particularly suitable to portray, to demonstrate, what we want to
demonstrate here.


You have no doubt perceived that this brings us to the analysis
of the psychological phenomenon that is in question in the
witticism, at the level of a signifying articulation which, no
doubt, even though it may interest you, at least I hope a good
number of you, is nonetheless the object, as you can well
(2) imagine, of something that might easily appear disturbing. I
mean that without doubt this something that surprises, upsets
your way of thinking is also at the very core of the renewal of
the analytic experience that I am carrying on here with you, and
concerns the place, I would say up to a certain point the
existence, of the subject. Someone asked me about this, someone
who is certainly far from being badly informed, nor indeed badly
informed about the question itself, nor badly informed about what
I am trying to contribute to it.


Someone asked me the question: “But what then becomes of the
subject? Where is it?”


The reply is easy when you are dealing with philosophers, because
it was a philosopher who asked me the question at the
Philosophical Society where I was speaking. I was tempted to
reply: “But on this point I could easily ask you to answer your
own question, and say that I leave it to philosophers to speak
about it. After all, I do not see why I should do all the work.”


This question of the elaboration of the notion of the subject
certainly needs to be revised as a result of the Freudian
experience. If there is something that has to be modified in it,
this is hardly a cause for surprise.


In other words, if Freud
has introduced something essential, should we still really expect
to see intelligent people, particularly psychoanalysts, all the
(3) more completely overwhelmed by a particular notion of the
subject, embodied in a certain style of thinking, as being simply
the ego – which is nothing but a return to what we can call the
grammatical confusions of the problem of the subject, the
identification of the ego with a power of synthesis that
certainly no data of experience can allow us to sustain. You
could even say that there is no need to draw on the Freudian



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: