9 from interpretation to the transference 從解釋到移情

8/14/2019 '9 From Interpretation to the Transference

1/5

'9

FROM INTERPRETATION TO THE TRANSFERENCE

Field of the ego and field of the Other

As far as vocabulary is concerned, what I am going to introduce today will, unfortunately, not be very

familiar to you. We shall be dealing with the most ordinary terms, such as identification, idealization,

projection, introjection. These are not easy terms to handle and it is not made any easier by the fact that

they already have meanings.

What could be more ordinary than to identify? It even seems like the essential operation of thought. To

idealize, that too might prove useful when the psychologistic position becomes more experimental. To

project and to introject are seen by some people as reciprocal terms. Yet I pointed out long ago

perhaps this fact should be realizedthat one of these terms refers to a field in which the symbolic is

dominant, the other to a field in which the imaginary is dominant, which must mean that, in a certain

dimension at least, they never meet.

The intuitive use of these terms, on the basis of the feeling that one has of understanding them, and of

understanding them in an isolated way as revealing their dimension in the common understanding, is

obviously at the source of all the misapprehensions and confusions. It is the common fate of anything

to do with discourse. In common discourse, he who speaks, at least in his native language, expresses

himself with such ease, with such evident familiarity, that it is to the most common user of a language,

to the uneducated man, that one has recourse if one wishes to know the correct usage of a term.

1


2/5

As soon as he wishes to speak, man is orientated in the fundamental topology of language, which is

very different from the simplistic realism in which he who thinks that he is at ease in the domain of

science all too often confines himself: The natural use of such expressionslet us select some at

randomas in one's own heart(a part soi),for good or ill (bon gre mal gre), a business (une afaire),

which is different from a thing to be done (une chose faire), implies the enveloping topology in which

the subject recognizes himself when he speaks spontaneously.

If I can speak to psycho-analysts and try to locate to which implicit topology they are referring when

using each of the terms I have just listed, it is obviously because, on the wholehowever incapable

they may often be, for lack of teaching, of articulating themthey frequently make adequate use of

them, with the same spontaneity as the ordinary man uses ordinary speech. Of course, if they are

determined to force the results of a case, and to understand where they do not understand, they will

inevitably make a forced use of these results.

In such instances, there will be few people to develop them. Today, then, I'm referring to this fact in the

psycho-analytic use of certain words, in order to be able to harmonize them with the evidence of a

topology that I have already introduced here and which is, for example, embodied on the blackboard in

the schema which shows you the field of the original Ich, the objectifiable Ich, in the last resort, in the

nervous system, the Ich of the homeostatic field, in relation to which the field of Lust, of pleasure, is

distinguished from the field of Unlust.

2


3/5

I have already pointed out that Freud distinguishes clearly between the level of the Ich, for example in

the article on the Triebe, when stressing both that it is manifested as organized, which is a narcissistic

sign, and that it is precisely to this extent that it is strictly articulated in the field of the real. In the real,

it distinguishes, it privileges only that which is reflected in its field by an effect of Lust, as return to

homeostasis.

But that which does not favor homeostasis and is maintained at all costs as Unlust bites still more into

its field. Thus, what is of the order of Unlust is inscribed in the ego as non-ego, negation, splitting-off

of the ego. The non-ego is not to be confused with what surrounds it, the vastness of the real. Non-ego

is distinguished as a foreign body,fremde Objekt. It is there, situated in the lunula constituted by the

two small Euler-type circles.

Look at the blackboard. In the register of pleasure, then, we can make for ourselves an objectifiable

foundation, just as the scientist is foreign to the object whose functioning he observes. But we are not

simply that, and even if we were, we would also have to be the subject who thinks. And in so far as we

are the subject who thinks, we are implicated in a quite different way, in as much as we depend on the

field of the Other, which was there long before we came into the world, and whose circulating

structures determine us as subjects.

It is a question, then, of knowing in what field the different things with which we deal in the field of

analysis occur. Some occur at the level of the first field, of the Ich, and otherswhich should be

distinguished from the first, because if one confuses them, one is lostin the other field, the field of

3


4/5

the Other. I have already shown you the essential articulations of this other field in the two functions

that I have defined and articulated as alienation and separation.

The rest of my discourse today presupposes that you have thought about these two functions since I

introduced them to youin other words, that you have tried to make them function at different levels,

to put them to the test.

I have already tried to embody certain consequences of the very particular vel that constitutes

alienationthe placing in suspense of the subject, its vacillation, the collapse of meaning in such

familiar forms as your money or your or freedom or death, which are reproduced from a being or

meaningterms that I do not propose without some reluctance. I would ask you not to be too hasty in

overloading them with meanings, for if you do you will only succeed in sinking them. So I feel that it is

incumbent upon me to warn you of this at the outset.

Nevertheless, I am introducing here what my discourse will try to articulate, if possible, next year. It is

a question of something that ought to be entitled the subjective positions. For all this preparation,

concerning the fundamentals of analysis, should normally serve to showsince nothing can be

properly centred except the position of the subjectwhat the articulation of analysis, on the basis of

desire, makes it possible to illustrate about these fundamentals.

4


5/5

Subjective positions, then, of what? If I relied on what is available, I would say the subjective

positions of existence, with all the advantages that this term may possess from being already much in

the air. Unfortunately, this term would allow us a rigorous application only at the level of the neurotic

which, indeed, would be no small matter. That is why I will say the subjective positions of being. I

am not committing myself in advance to my title, I may find a better one, but, in any case,

that's what it's about.

[email protected]

5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

9 from interpretation to the transference 從解釋到移情

Documents