Lacanian Compass
Video-Seminar series
"Reading the Unconscious"

On Sunday, September 26, the Lacanian Compass hosted its first Video-Seminar in preparation for our upcoming Clinical Study Days on "Reading the Unconscious." Fabián Naparstek, a Member of the EOL in Argentina, joined us as our guest. Naparstek presented a very carefully argued text on "The Masculine Unconscious," in which he advanced several propositions on the the theme that the unconscious is masculine, which led to a very stimulating conversation. We also heard a case presentation by Fernando Schutt, a Member of the NEL in Miami, which demonstrated the place for psychoanalysis in agency settings and the psychoanalytic approach to a case of so-called fibromyalgia.

Our next Video-Seminar is scheduled for October 31. Our guest is Elisa Alvaregna from the EBP in Brazil, who will present on "What is the Importance of Dreams in Psychoanalysis Today." We will also have a Case Presentation by Fabio Azaredo, a Member of NYFLAG in New York.

Getting ready for the Clinical Study Days #5

NEL-Miami

Circle of lectures: Getting ready for the Clinical Study Days #5 “Reading the Unconscious"
First Lecture:

“Reading the Unconscious”
Speaker: Fernando Schutt, LMHC
Member of the Word Association of Psychoanalysis
Member of NEL-Miami

Tuesday, September 28, 2010
7:00 pm
Address: 782 NW 42nd AVE, Suite 203-A
Miami, FL 33126
Entrance is Free

The members of the World Association of Psychoanalysis in the United States have been holding an annual nation-wide conference showing and debating our clinical practice at the USA.
This time Miami Beach will host the Clinical Study Days #5 from January 14 - 16.
The NEL- Miami is celebrating it with a series of short related conferences
Participation in these conferences is free and open to the public.

CLINICAL STUDY DAYS 5

the Lacanian Orientation-US and the Lacanian Compass present

CLINICAL STUDY DAYS 5

January 14-16, 2011

Miami Beach

“READING THE UNCONSCIOUS”

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Fifth Clinical Study Days are to be hosted in Miami Beach on January 14-16, 2011, with the participation of Vicente Palomera, Spanish Psychoanalyst, and in the presence of Pierre-Gilles Gueguen, special Delegate of the World Association of Psychoanalysis for the United States. Leonardo Gorostiza, President of the World Association of Psychoanalysis will deliver the opening remarks via videoconference.

The theme of the meeting is “Reading the Unconscious.” The concept of the Unconscious in Jacques Lacan’s teaching has gone through a complex evolution reflected in the theory but also in the practice of psychoanalysis: “We find this path of Lacan’s often traced in psychoanalytic experience today–psychoanalyses which will begin with explorations of meaning and fascinations with the very formations of the unconscious…and then, with time…continue around difficult points, things impossible to speak about. What are the consequences of this for the act of Reading the Unconscious? How do we read something that is impossible to say? These are the themes we wish to explore for our next Clinical Study Days, what is it to read the Unconscious, even if it is to read a text that is not written.” [From the Argument]

The Scientific Committee of the CSD5 invites you to present a paper at this meeting. We are soliciting two types of papers.

The first is clinical case presentations, where the theme of the Study Days, “Reading the Unconscious,” should be addressed. Papers should be both at most 20 minutes long when read aloud and at most 15,000 characters (with spaces) in length.

The second is papers that address this theme from a cultural or societal perspective, or treat the theme from a theoretical perspective. They will be part of a round table. Papers in this category should be both at most 10 minutes long when read aloud and at most 7,500 characters (with spaces) in length.

Please send your texts to the CSD5 Scientific Committee at mcrisaguirre@yahoo.com

Papers should be submitted not later than November 1, 2010. We appreciate your interest and collaboration on the Clinical Study Days, and we are looking forward to receiving your papers and to seeing you in Miami Beach.

Scientific Committee

Ellie Ragland

Fernando Schutt

Pam Jespersen

Gary Marshall

Maria Cristina Aguirre

Seminario: Aun y el pase

Clinical Study Days 5

"Reading the Unconscious"

Miami Beach, Florida
Weekend of January 14-16, 2011

with our guest, Vicente Palomera
Analyst Member of the School of the Escuela Lacaniana de Psicoanálisis (Spain)

and with remarks via video-conference of Leonardo Gorostiza,
President of the World Association of Psychoanalysis

Presentation of the Theme


When Lacan--in the first phase of his teaching--describes the unconscious as "structured like a language," the notion of Reading the Unconscious makes sense rather quickly. Indeed, we might say that Reading the Unconscious is a very simple way to describe interpretation itself. But, Lacan, even at this moment in his teaching, in the "Agency of the Letter," describes that this act of Reading is not so simple, not one oriented on the level of the signified, on a reading of the text oriented to meaning, but rather on a reading of the unconscious oriented to the signifier, to the letter itself, which may be opaque to meaning, the bar between the signifier and the signified barring access, as it were, to meaning.

With the middle phase of Lacan's teaching, things get even more complicated. The challenge to the act of reading is not merely to be found at the level of the symbolic order. With the introduction of the object a, Lacan, in Seminar X, describes a symbolic order that is not able to fully symbolize the subject. There is a failure to this process of symbolization, which he articulates with the body, and the object a exists as a residue, a reminder of that failure. The very next year, in Seminar XI, Lacan redefines the unconscious not on the basis of it as structured like a language, but on two planes, that of the alienation of the subject in the signifier through which he is represented in the Other, and, also, that of separation, where what is at stake is the object a as representation of the jouissance of the encounter of the subject with the Other. We might say, then, that the act of reading may be reformulated on two levels, that of the master signifier, and that of the object a, the latter providing the ultimate horizon for the interpretive act. (Did not Freud too undertake a similar trajectory: from the classic emphasis on meaning and a structured unconscious in The Interpretation of Dreams to an attempt to articulate something about the point where meaning and the pleasure primciple fails, with his elaboration of the death drive in Beyond the Pleasure Principle?)

With the final Lacan, the unconscious is reworked so much that we might even discard the concept. With the concept of 'lalangue' in Seminar XX, the notion of a barrier between the symbolic and the real is gone, and jouissance is no longer isolated in a fragment, but diffuses language and meaning itself, redefined at this moment as 'enjoying-meaning.' And, then, there is the case of James Joyce (Seminar XXIII), whose very singular subjectivity is described on the basis of the way that he 'un-subscribes' to his unconscious.

We find this path of Lacan's often traced in the psychoanalytic experience today--psychoanalyses which will begin with explorations of meaning and fascinations with the very formations of the unconscious, which present in a most classic manner, and then, with time, move more to circulate, if the analysis continues to its end, around difficult points, things impossible to speak about. The focus shifts from what Jacques-Alain Miller has termed the transferential unconscious to the real unconscious.

What are the consequences of this for the very act of Reading the Unconscious? How do we read something that is impossible to say? Last year, at the Congress of the World Association of Psychoanalysis, we addressed this question in part with the ways in which we use the concept of the semblant. We might also here learn from the Testimonies of the Pass, from those subjects who have taken their psychoanalysis to this very end.

These are the themes we wish to explore for our next Clinical Study Days, what it is to read the unconscious, even if it is to read a text that is not written.

more information to follow shortly . . .

Just a little reflection about our health care system.

This is not psychoanalytic in itself but I can not make it without recognizing its influence on me.
Here's a little tidbit I want to share with you:
Have you ever seen a law firm owned by somebody who is not a lawyer? Probably there are, but I do not know of any. Perhaps, and despite it being a very profitable business, this is because it's hard to be handled by an outsider of the field. Did you notice that the bosses in most accounting firms are usually people with a business related degree? I can't understand it! Those are not easy affairs to deal with. They require someone who has the kind of professional qualifications to deal with them. Although it is a very profitable business too, I never heard about a singer, for example, buying and managing an accountant firm as an investment.
Can you imagine an architecture studio led by somebody other than an architect? Yes, of course, there are many investors. But the head of the projects are architects.
Now lets see what happens in the health care system. Can you imagine a lawyer or an accountant at the head of a health center? Can you imagine someone without any degrees in front of a clinic? Well, you should, because that is exactly what is going on.It seems to me that something is wrong with that.
Don’t you think so?


Fernando Schutt, LMHC

Talk to me please!

A few days ago, someone close to me told me when she mentioned I was a psychoanalyst to some friends, they said they thought psychoanalysts didn’t talk. They said that they didn’t like psychoanalysis because “you’re expecting them to tell you what to do and they don’t even talk.”
I'd like to split this statement in two parts; that the analyst doesn’t speak, on the one hand, and that the psychoanalyst does not tell the analysand what to do, on the other.
Let’s take the first: The analyst does not speak.
It is very common to find this image in comic books and films. Someone goes to the psychoanalyst’s office, lies on a couch and talks while the analyst takes notes. Eventually he emits onomatopoeic sounds. This may be a good filming resource to make the protagonist’s inner speech audible in the scene, but does not accurately reflect the psychoanalytic session in reality.
Of course the psychoanalyst is interested on what the analysand has to say! After all, this is exactly the point of a tratment. Therefore it is correct to say that the psychoanalyst does not talk, if it means that he does not engage in his own personal affairs. Can you imagine going to a medical consultation with pain and the doctor ends up telling you his personal problems rather than focusing on his task?

The analyst will do everything in his power to facilitate that the analysand speaks. That includes questions and silences, among other possibilities. But the analyst will operate with the analysand’s speech. This is part of his function. Sometimes an intervention can be a silence. But sometimes does not mean always. What’s the point of a psychoanalytical treatment if the psychoanalyst is not going to make any intervention with the analysand’s speech?
To be continued…

by Fernando Schutt, LMHC

Psychoanalysis in the US

After immigrating to the US, almost ten years ago, I realized that most of the people didn’t know anything about psychoanalysis. Worst still, most of those who had heard something about it, had a negative opinion of it.
Intrigued, I started researching. I quickly realized the inaccurate take on this subject by the textbooks. Later, I got to mingle with university professors that made it evident, for anyone with some understanding of the field, that they hadn’t read anything more than the wrong psychoanalytic references in the textbooks mentioned above.
Many reasons led psychoanalysis in America to this sad situation, I think. But there is one I want to mention: psychoanalysts have not been able to respond appropriately.
My idea is to use this blog to disseminate psychoanalysis and to respond to biases and errors that I keep finding.
This blog will far exceed my expectations if it manages to be useful for someone more than myself.