Print

Print


From:
         [log in to unmask]

3:01 PM

In a message dated 4/8/99 2:38:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]
writes:

<< From:
          "etet928" <[log in to unmask]>

 9:53 AM

 Dear Psyart,

 I wonder how psychoanalysis is successfully possible in dealing with
our
 unconscious subject if Jacques Lacan claims that the primordial or
 phallic
 signifier has always already been lost and remained as a missed
 encounter?
 Then, what we find in the real world is nothing but a displaced or
 misplaced object as a substitute, thus, the moment the analysand finds
 himself cured might be his "trumatic" moment of a self-recognition: an
 awareness of a lack in his inner tragedy, a gap that forever
 disintegrates
 himself into a unity with his "thinking subject", a transcendent realm
 of
 noumenon of pure understanding beyond phenomenon (in Kantian term)?
Then
 why do we need analysis? If we've lost our "thinking being"? Nothing
 could
 be found and thinking beings remain like a phantom or unknowable.  Why
 not
 try art-therapy in Deleuzian sense? Maybe "illness" can be easily
cured.

 By the way, I've not seen the movie yet "Analyze This"...
 after your discussion, I'll go to that movie.

 Emily Tsai >>

Emily, if Lacan believed in the futility of analysis, why did he do
analysis?
 What was he doing with all of those patients of his?

Alicia Robertson