Ordinary Psychosis with a Borromean Approach : 2009 : Pierre Skriabine

by Julia Evans on January 1, 2009

This is the text of a talk. It is not known when or where or to whom this talk was addressed.

Translated by Pierre Skriabine

Published in Psychoanalytical Notebooks : Issue 19 : 2009 : p45-56

Available at www.LacanianWorksExchange.net  /authors by date or authors a-z

References to Jacques Lacan’s texts

A translation of Seminar XXII: R. S. I. : 1974-1975: from 19th November 1974 : Jacques Lacan  is available here

P38 of Skriabine’s text : 3. Lacan points out that for Freud, R, S and I are left independent, adrift; and that to make his theoretical construction hold, Freud needs something more that he names ” psychical reality “, and which is nothing other than the Oedipus complex: i.e. a fourth term which makes a knot out of the three independent terms, the three free loops, R, S and I (Seminar R.S.I., 14th January 1975).

Seminar XXII : 14th January 1975 : p46 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : There is in Freud a reference to something that he considers to be Real. It is not what people believe. It is not the Realitätsprinzip,because it is too obvious that this Realitätsprinzipis a matter of saying, namely, social. But let us suppose that he had the suspicion [p47] simply, that he did not say to himself that this could make a knot. In short, Freud, contrary to a prodigious number of people, from Plato to Tolstoi, Freud was not a Lacanian. I have to say it, but to slip this banana skin under his foot, in short, is that not so, of the R.S.I., of the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary, let us try to see how he effectively disentangled himself from it.

[diagram not reproduced]

These here [on the board] do not hold up, huh! [III-4] I am pointing out to you, they are placed on top of one another, the Real is there, the Imaginary there and the Symbolic is there, just like in the earlier schema. Ah! What did Freud do? Ah! I am going to tell you. He made the knot of four with these three, these three which I suppose to be a banana skin under his feet. But then, here is how he proceeded; he invented something that he calls psychical reality. I should have put the third knot here, the third field of ek-sistence, namely, the enjoyment of the Other. Since these two figures, since they are figures, are the same, you see that it is from a line that is found to cross, to cross these fields which are designated as ek sistence of something around consistency, to cross these fields, namely, here to be in the enjoyment of the Other, then in the Imaginary, then in meaning, then from the hole of the Symbolic and by breaking through it, to be somewhere in an existence which is outside the Symbolic and the Real, that it returns towards this point which is none other than the one that I designate as the o-object. This is what can knot with a fourth term, the Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real, in so far as Symbolic, Imaginary and Real are [p48] independent, go with the drift in Freud. It is as such that he requires a psychical reality that knots these three consistencies.

P49 of Skriabine’s text : Thus Lacan can propose “three forms of the Name-of-the-Father, those that name the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real” (R.S.I.,18/03/75)

Seminar XXII : 18th March 1975 : P132 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : I will speak the next time about three forms of the Names-of-the- father, those that name as such the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real, for it is in these names themselves that the knot holds up.

P50 of Skriabine’s text: He then specifies that “It is not only the symbolic which has the privilege of the Names of the Father, nomination does not have to be conjoined with the hole in the symbolic”(R.S.I., 15/04/75)

Seminar XXII : 15th April 1975 : P164 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Why is it structural? Because there is the Symbolic. What one must manage to clearly conceive of is that this prohibition consists in the hole of the Symbolic. There must be something of the Symbolic for there to appear individualised in the knot this something that I, I do not so much call the Oedipus complex, it is not so complex as all that. I call that the Name of the Father. Which means nothing but the Father as Name, which means nothing at the start, not simply the father as name, but the father as naming.

P50 of Skriabine’s text: this is what Lacan indicates at the end of his Seminar R.S.I. These are the three basic forms of the names-of-the father.

Seminar XXII : 13th May 1975 : p184 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : This indeed in effect is a question that is worth dwelling on a little, because this stems from the meaning which, in each case, is a different meaning. The nomination of each one, which moreover is a common name, not a proper name in Russell‟s sense, what does the nomination of each one of the species represent? Assuredly a narrowly Symbolic nomination, a nomination limited to the Symbolic. Is this sufficient for us to support what happens at a point that is certainly not indifferent in this elementing of four of the knot that is supported by the name of the Father. Is the Father the one who has given their name to things? Or indeed should this Father be questioned qua Father, at the level of the Real? In a word is the eternal Father, in whom of course nothing would prevent us from believing if it was even thinkable that he himself believes in himself, while it is quite clearly unthinkable, should we put the term nomination as knotted at the level of this circle by which we support the function of the Real? It is between these three terms, nomination from the Imaginary as inhibition, nomination from the Real as what is found to happen in fact, namely, anxiety, or nomination from the Symbolic, I mean implicated, flower of the Symbolic itself, namely, as it happens in fact in the form of the symptom, it is between these three terms that I will try next year, it is not a reason because I have the answer that I do not leave it to you as a question, that I will question myself next year about what substance should be given to the name of father.

P52 of Skriabine’s text: This has been emphasized thanks to Lacan’s presentation of the ill at Sainte Anne’s that lasted for many years. J.-A. Miller gave an impressive summary of this experience in a paper published in Ornicar ? no 10, “Lessons from the presentation of the ill”, 1977.

Teachings of the Case Presentation : 1977 : Jacques-Alain Miller : Information and availability here

P54 of Skriabine’s text: There is a particularly enlightening paper on this subject : it’s Lacan’s first development of his differential clinic, namely “Family complexes”  published in 1938.

Family Complexes in the Formation of the Individual: 1938: Jacques Lacan : Translation available here

P55 of Skriabine’s text : But let’s quote Lacan: “It is in this reproduction that crumbles the superficially assumed conformity” (this means the subject has been conforming himself to the “good shape”, expected from him, which was but only semblance and illusory appearance) “by the means of which the subject until then has been concealing his narcissistic relationship to reality”.

There are a number of passages which this might be, for example : p59 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation of ‘Family Complexes’, See here : The limit of the reality of the object in psychosis, the point of retrogression of sublimation, seems to us to be given precisely at that moment which is indicated in our
view by the aura of oedipal fulfilment. This is the setting-up of an object that has been produced, to use our own formulation, in an atmosphere of astonishment and 
wonder. This moment is reproduced by the phase that we believe to be always present and designate as the productive phase of the delusion: a phase in which objects transformed by an ineffable strangeness appear as shocking, enigmatic or full of meaning. It is in this reproduction that there collapses that superficially assumed conformism, by means of which the subject had until then masked the narcissism of his relationship to reality.

This narcissism is expressed in the forms of the object.

Further posts

Topology   here

Jacques Lacan   here

Sigmund Freud    here

By Pierre Skriabine here

By Jean-Michel Vappereau here

In Seminar XXVI : 15th May 1979, there is a dialogue between Jean-David Nasio and Jean-Michel Vappereau. See Seminar XXVI : Topology and Time : 1978-1979 : begins 21st November 1978 : Jacques Lacan or here


 Note : If links to any required text do not work, check www.LacanianWorksExchange.net. If a particular text or book remains absent, contact Julia Evans.


Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Sandwich in Kent & London


Other texts

Use of power here

Lacanian Transmission  here

Some Lacanian History  here

Topology  here

By Pierre Skriabine here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud  here

By Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here

By Julia Evans here