Lutecium Blog

By Rebecca Bauknight, Ph.D.

After my provocative course posting which likened object relations to pornography I received the following questions which I thought were helpful in articulating Lacanian clinical work. But before posting this Q and A. I wanted to perhaps focus an ongoing discussion on the following points.

Why is a Lacanian work radical with regards to how individuals relate to cultural, societal,political and global influences ?

How does Lacanian practice of psychoanalysis differ from other forms of analysis and psychotherapy that are so pervasive in the United States ?

Also…I give much appreciation and thanks to Jacques Siboni our primary teacher, along with the support of our Paris affiliates. I also want to give much thanks to Robert Groome, a Lacanian psychoanalyst at PLACE in LA, and our faculty and students for supporting the transmission of the current Lacanian/Freudiene movement that we at WWW.Lutecium.US desire to transmit through our particular formation that is grounded on the most recent productions in critical theory, philosophy. poetics, art , queer theory, and topology.

Because many are not well-acquainted with how the clinic of the Real works in the actual analytic room, I would like to begin a dialogue so that the clinical Lacan can be discussed in more detail. I am particularly interested in drawing from the work of Siboni, Collette Sollers, Harari, Groome as well as Verhaege and Declercq who have along with others done much work in describing the Lacanian clinic of the Real.

I believe the following dialogue may begin to demonstrate Lacan’s radical emphasis on the singularity of a speaking subject and his preservation of a personal unconscious.

INQUIRY: Is the introduction of the Symbolic sufficient to enable an infant to negotiate traumatic experience and to regulate the excess of the body’s own expression? Is maternal containment simply a fantasy (perverse in denying sexual difference) or is it an admittedly-idealized model of infant-mother communication/analysand-analyst communication. How do representations of bodily contours relate to the development of sufficient psychic structure to tolerate uncertainties and intensities of all kinds? Does positing oscillation of contained-container “roles” (say, ike that of paranoid-schizoid/depressive “positions”) as optimal mode of relating to the other challenge a perverse position or simply reinscribe it?

Rebecca: I start out with the following premise:
There is no such thing as an introduction of the symbolic. Subjects are born in to it. So therefore there is no such thing as a dyad (in reality). The infant is hit with the Mother’s division, her language, her unconscious, presence and absence within the gaze. There is no such thing as a transcendent third position that can “observe” the reality of an infant-mother dyad. There is a collusion of maternal attachment theories and privileging of “infant-mother relationship” that ignores the aspect of “reconstruction” of trauma that is always beyond a final signifying punctuation. To remove the unconscious, jouissance, and the subject’s symptom from the site of trauma and to collaborate on a “reality story” is a perversion of psychoanalysis that is avoiding castration.

The body is in the real.

I think the capacity for each subject to negotiate the Other is based on complex factors not necessarily dependant on any sort of “ideal body boundaries” set into place at the mirror stage. The notions that a certain “normed” subject with idealic conditions present during mirror stage will then be able to internalize necessary structures to hold..psychic traumatic material..etc. is problematic. And that the analyst can fulfill the role of the container because they have been “normed” thought a “norming containing analysis” perpetuates a certain kind of mirror stage dependence that in fact stifles speech and new speech in particular. This is a collusion to mutually ward off anxiety.. rather than bind psychic material through the analysts effort to gain knowledge of the subject’s symptom through signification that is produced by inviting the transferences that raise castration anxiety into the room.

INQUIRY: I found your answers quite illuminating and was taken most particularly with the following statement of the analytic function: “[to] bind psychic material through the analyst’s effort to gain knowledge of the symptom through signification that is produced by inviting the transferences that raise castration anxiety into the room.”

Rebecca: The analyst is interested in knowledge of the subject’s desire..and utilizes the method of free association for this purpose. In this position the analyst stands in for the front line of the social link, The Other, and naturally the negative transference will unfold if there is room for frustration, anxiety..etc. This isn’t forced, but allowed. There is an invitation for the negative transference to surface in order that unconscious material can be made conscious in order that imaginary identifications can be dissolved through the symbolic.

It is the engagement of the Analytic/Other other with the “dyadic” imaginary identifications..that can be utilized to understand the transference and the relationship that the subject has to castration anxiety/to jouissance/desire. The body boundary ego cohesion formed in the mirror stage is certainly a facet regarding character structure but I was taught that this should never be utilized in any prescriptive way. As there are many ways that a sinthome can travel through various structures even when there are less cohesive experiences regarding the phenomological experience or representations of body boundaries. It is such an individual work.

INQUIRY: Are you saying that a constitutive language-culture-Oedipal division is mediated by/expressed in the mother’s gaze (and perhaps other part objects in her handling/nurture interaction with the infant; perhaps even during the gestation period, in/through the mother’s being)?

Rebecca: Regarding bodies…the mothers conscious and unconscious relationship to her mother, her father, her lover, her body and to her child’s body have much to do with the inheritance that the child is born into. It is a transgenerational inheritance that the subject is born into. The mother is divided. She isn’t “ being”.

INQUIRY: Next, is it a fair implication of “the dyad doesn’t exist (in reality)” in conjunction with the non-existence of a “transcendent third position,” along with the possibility of transference, that: an actual dyad is necessarily unobservable but that a fantasmatic relation can possibly bind an infant-mother or analysand-analyst? Is such a fantasy never developmentally useful (along with being inevitable), whether in relation to child-rearing or the course of an analysis?

Rebecca: The subject’s symptom is generally tied into a difficult relationship between jouissance and law. The repetition compulsion tends to surface unresolved conflicts that have to do with the taboos of incest and murder that tends to be revisited with others..including the analyst. The conscious fantasy of the infant- mother bond is never “just” nurturing in “child rearing” or in an analysis…if one believes in the infantile polymorphous perverse. An over- emphasis on purity and goodness of a mother-child relationship is gratifying to the subject in an incestuous way and can easily gratify the subject by enabling subject to occupy the position of the analyst’s phallus in the guise of “holding”. This is basically a use, exploitation and infantilization of the subject that cultivates need rather than enabling desire.

INQUIRY: Are not “holding environment” and PI as primitive communication representations of the Imaginary relation supporting and motivating the transference as “means of understanding”? I guess what I’m asking about is precisely the pragmatic (as well as inevitable) place of the imaginary in the clinic.
long with that, the (fantasmatic?) movement from/between, partial- and whole-object relating as it corresponds to the durability of internal psychic structure.

Rebecca: In an analysis there is always regression and imaginary identifications that generally surface in layered ways. Many times conscious imaginings will surface (the socially tolerable content) with the conflict related to unconscious material in the dream material or transference or parapraxis. The analyst is obligated to hear the words that the subject speaks about these imaginary identifications with an analytic ear… if one believes in an unconscious.

INQUIRY: There may not BE whole objects, but how much structure (if not how much paranoid certainty, manic “rapture,” or perverse insistence) is necessary to tolerate discontinuity and contingency (The Real)? And where does it (the structure; or, to use Bion’s phrase from Keats, the “negative capability?) come from if not from some integration of the Symbolic and the Imaginary? That integration (okay, symptom –> Sinthome), mediated by the Other in the nursery, the clinic, or “transformational object” (Bollas)?

Rebecca: I agree with this part that ….there has to be a certain timing in analysis related to the relationship between the imaginary and the symbolic before the subject can confront the Real. However, I don’t think this is prescriptive work.. how each person comes to this point in an analysis is not based on any one to one correspondence to categorized structures. I think it is too simplistic to come up with the idea that psychotic structures or neurotic structures are more or less able to confront the Real. It is always a surprise to me who can do this work on both ends. (analysts and patients). I believe this has to do with a most singular work between an analyst and an analysand and defies quantification. Most importantly the subject has to begin to engage the analyst’s desire on the way to structuring their own, and the structuring of desire cannot happen if there is a lack of lack. It cannot happen without the lack that is necessary to cross the phantasm. Anxiety lacks an object..it is unavoidable and the mother of all affect related to the direction of the cure as Lacan so aptly noted.

Coming back from the summer break, I look forward to the unfolding of dialogues and exchanges here. I hope for traces of thinking captured in a post or a comment.  I hope you will join me.

Recently, I have been reflecting on the concept/process of alienation and its (surprisingly) contradictory meanings – the (common) sense of alienation as estrangement from other people, the (legal) sense of the (power of) alienation as an essential ingredient of ownership, and then, in Lacanian sense, as an advent of the subject.  Perhaps, instead of giving into the negative connotation – as in deliberate action of becoming unfriendly – there is a way to understand alienation as a hopeful possibility of innovation and creativity.  Perhaps alienation is a sign that something was given up, relinquished rather than abjected.  A sign, perhaps, that a new ownership can take place – for me that would be an ownership of my own thoughts (or “thinking of my own making”) … Though, if we accept that we do need to speak to one another in order to relate to one another, yet our words betray us once spoken, silence may become an easy (uneasy?) solution…  but…  isn’t it that it is precisely then that we find ourselves “being spoken for”? Abjected? Alienated? Unheard?

And… on the Lacanian subject (and the subject of Lacan), I read: “Alienation and separation are linked to the two-fold lack and they install the subject in a never ending pulsating process of appearing and disappearing.  Alienation takes the subject away from its being, in the direction of the Other.  Separation is the opposite process, inasmuch as it redirects the subject toward its being, thus opening a possibility of escape from the all-determining alienation, and even a possibility of choice, albeit a precarious one” (Paul Verhaeghe)

So… what do you say?  Can this become a place to speak instead of being spoken for?

Welcome to the Lutecium blog.  We invite you to participate in and contribute to our Open Cartel.  If you are interested, please subscribe to our blog by clicking on “Log-in” below.  Your account and your first posting will have to be confirmed, so please allow 24 hours to process your request.  We hope you will join the conversation!

I am getting geared up for our March Lutecium immersion where Jacques Siboni and Robert Groome will be formally presenting to our candidates and faculty …….Lacan’s topology…Lacan’s later work. 

Recently I stumbled across the beginning of a paper entitled “The Aesthetic Illogic of the symtom”.  I had begun the paper ten years ago. I was looking for words to describe what ,in recent years, I realized that Lacan had already articulated. Lacan’s later work moves from privileging the symbolic to an interest in more closely representing how the REAL through the object a….. informs the symptom at the most basic level of drive and fixations mapped within the erogenous zones of the body.

A group of us in San Francisco were fortunate to have the later works of Lacan disseminated to us for the last 8 years… through the valliant efforts of Jacques Siboni. 

Lacan’s turn to topology was an attempt to utilize discourses more apt to represent that which can’t be seen or so easily logically deduced; those territories such as the universe and the cosmos that have traditionally been the domain of mathmeticians and topologists. Lacan, of course, believed that these findings would necessarily fold back into language to find their order within the symbolic. Lacan did, in fact, place his topological findings into language and taught it to others. Now Lacan’s findings continue to find their place in the symbolic through the third and now fourth generation of Lacanian psychoanalysis. I have been able to finish my paper which outlines the richness that culminates in his later work, and includes the feminist challenge to lack. Lacan made radical revisions to his understanding of phallic and feminine jouissance. These revisions offer so many jumping off points for those of us who have had a passionate social and political interest in understanding the Other beyond “cultural symbolic” restrictions that were inherant in the privileging of a phallogocentric symbolic.     

I believe that there are returns of knowledges, particularly complex knowledge of Lacan never fully finished…or revealed by any one person or group……it is through one voice, or another, perhaps many that hear the ressonance of a far reaching trace through knowledge that keeps certain knowledges resounding, moving through time,  revolutionized in order that they continue to return… Kierkegaard said that the testament to a great thinker were the numbers  and efforts of those who try to complete a tremendous thinkers’ thoughts. Certainly there is room for infinite vantage points in how we listen and ressonate to the words, concepts and the trace that Lacan left us with. He fanned our desire to know…beyond what has already been discovered. Lacan led us far….It is up to us to continue…..exploring.. returning to Lacan…..to explore the unconscious as Lacan returned to Freud….to explore the unconscious. The fourth generation returns to Lacan.

Preface to the forth coming publication 

The Clinic of the REAL;The fourth generation of Lacanian Psychoanalysis     

  “Seaweed, the symptom, becomes caught and swept into the hard bone of symbolic, inside a matrix of rock lace, and wears it into another pattern within, within the coral, another shaping, another shifting. Jouissance is underwater, jouissance is captive, but spills over through openings into a labyrinth of white and pink cartlige breathing under water. It rips open the symptom against the coral-the symbolic. There is a dark blue moving into turquoise or perhaps a sea green that plays with a magenta light refracting off the sheen of reef …blasting colors onto the shifts and waves of an origin. The sea from which we evolved. Outside of language before…the origin of the universe whose coordinates are best left up to numbers and geometry…we agree on this. We cannot locate the other side of our beginning, yet it is with us…this trace…of the universe of which we are matter…to which we belong which is best left up to numbers and geometry. We agree on this.
The symbolic, the coral shifts and returns to sand, it is sanded down it becomes the outside  as the sand moves into particles twirling in an undercurrent, the symbolic tears and breaks soon it becomes what lies outside of it. What conditioned it. What designed it. It moves back to its beyond. We agree on this.”                                                                                                            
Rebecca from The Illogical Aesthetic of the Symptom (1999)
  

What is the trace in transmission. A trace is the remainder of the object a that comes to us in a very nostaligic and particular way that “moves us deeply”.  The trace is of this world and not of this world since there is something that we are hit with that resides within our symlptom our jouissance that is not fully repressed but is foreclosed so that there is someething of this tear….this bodily jouissance that comes back to us through an event. Through something in this world. Lacan would suggest it could come to us through language. This trace…..but it cannot be anchored down or nailed down through signification….as the real escapes the events of this world. But the trace is what impacts the subjects relation to events so significantly. So how do I begin to incorporate the trace in transmission into the classroom. What happens when speech imparts a trace and is this full speech vs. empty speech because it is resonnating with the fourth register. The fourth register is the symptome so this would hold the real…..kernel of the real therefore when it is jostled through some sort of address as in poetry, art, that which attempts to trace traces……then another sort of an effect occurs. One walks away from such meeting with some sort of deep clammoring…not so much for approval….but for something more related to this chip of what almost feels like one’s self.  This trace of teh object a that lingers in some ways of writing and talking and speaking. This is what I long to translate or write about or offer…..but as Lacan began to recognize language becomes difficult….here..as a trace is a trace is a trace…that appears and dissappears and can’t be spoken.

 How would this effect love Aden and translation Kristopher.

The trace…..

Rebecca

Aden
As you know, in Lacan’s later work he laid out the symptomotology of the phallic jouissance as well as the feminine jouissance.  The earlier work is concerned with taking a look at how various character structures are moving around the symbolic/the law of the father.  The later  Lacan sees that the symbolic as symptomatic and lacking, and Lacan moves from priviledging the symbolic to priviledging the object a/REAL–I follow  his lead. Simply put there is inhibition, in the phallic exchange and there is imagination in the feminine jouissance both have their problems. Both are in someways defenses regarding the REAL. Both generate death and life to a certain extent.

In the later work Lacan moves to examine the relationship between the subject and his/her jouissance—while all of our  personal jouissances are going to in someway be informed by development.  How we bring in the gaze, how we bring in signfication which will always have imaginary identifications (logical language or poetic) is informed by the beyond of the object a that is first torn from us when we pass from existencce to non existence and then various factors will lay over onto that. It is the confrontation with this object a—that the fixations derail, and it is at this juncture when the subject understands the ground/the REAL that his/ symptoms pivot upon that something different can happen, a differerent movement of the symptom beyond fixation in the gaze that still haunts us in the symbolic.

This later work does returns us to the trace of object and The REAL of the body. Lacan’s later work was stimulated by writers like Joyce and Dumas, his exploration of how the writer turns symtpom to sinthome—this intimate wording and threading self jouissance back into the symbolic…..This is what he began to trace to understand another way to resolve symptoms besides compromise formation which has social and political and personal implications. Revolutions in thought move out of imagination…not inhibition…revolution in the symptom is what Lacan saw—a radical swing of the symptom into the sinthome–back into the symbolic/culture. 

So it is important to note that this is not necessarily a “repetition of the hysterics discourse”…..or an anarchy to turn against Lacan.  Rather it is a way to design and build a path that is worth walking within present culture. It is a path that also has been laid for us by Lacan and so many others that walk this way….a deeply personal, reflected, philosophical and aesthetic path that has classical roots and much language to add. It is a path of lineage of history, a path that others have thrown words towards allowing us to  continue on our way…..Lacans, Siboni, Fannon  and Cixous, Barthes of the world….it is in their vein and legacy that a path has been laid for us. Whose motherland do we speak of ? Whose motherland are we most tied ?  Who speaks to us most deeply ? At what pitch at what level do we wisht to speak to others ?  

It is an acceptance of the symptom and then how to move that into sinthome in order that one’s unique play of jouissance can have its effects in a more symbolic way. As this binds into the world rather than have this kind of jouissance sequestered in  some “cultures” symptom of let’s say “inhibition” or censorship from the more obsessive/anxiety side.. . . 

I am making a personal choice to accept my symptom and work through it as sinthome. I accept that these perturbations may incite. generate havoc…but want to demonstrate Lacan’s mapping of the psyche by living in the radical zone of speaking that I have been offered.  To me this is my only choice in participating and moving Lacan’s project. It is to deeply regard and accept my symtom so that I can participate in a lacanian project in full speach rather than hover around symptoms of the Other–imaginary identifications …that lose my continuing connection to object a…..through a certain style and type of language and speech.

Lacan demonstrates his work through voice, thought, through a willingness to be singular. I read, I listen, I follow, I take much closer direction here than what might meet the eye. I have marked myself as Lacanian through and through and some of my exercises and projects continue this in a more flagrant way. Particularly the exercise of loosening up and making sure we have the space to write..my idea of losing the audience to the desert was to allow us to really not be so pressured regarding thoughts and ideas to move into less appropriated zones in order that we might really speak to one another through texts as this is where the future of our work resides in what we carve out for each other and the next generation.

 ..at some point this is the type of writing that will have a chance of making something out of itself.   That will be able to move into the symbolic squarely and powefully. It is not severe inhibition which fosters the singular voice. In fact, where is our writing .It is tentative, it stops short, it hides out…..but any writing of psychoanalysis must be honest..and must take risk to demonstrate our times….us…..some of us…in it.

As far as decisions and choices regarding where one lives in their projects and thier work. For Lacan this would be up to each of us to take responsibility ……for…..choices one makes as one can’t live in both the phallic and feminine economy at exactly the same time..The imagination and inhibition need one another—its how one wants to play it.

While I keep an eye on the phallic economy to assure enought credibility to pursue my path. But not enought to breakdown my own speech and my own flight into words. Walking the tight rope. with the recognition that a breeze at anytime could knock me over..it does and it has and yet I crave love walking this line..it is my ode to the object a/REAL and the unconscious….. a line I continue through Lacan…and pass to others…a lineage….always through my sinthome.  As Jacques Siboni once said, “Psychoanalysis is my jouissance.” This is the ethic I follow. 

Rebecca     

rebecca, i want to respond and add.

 1-  i do not know a flower mister or mistress fit to invite besides myself.  let me be her.  i have texture and color and waterlogged fingers to show for it. 

2- the dessert, where no flowers grow.  yes.

3- This is scary mirroring of sympom/analysis, love/marriage.

scared.  your blog is regection of appropriation, privileging of ‘a.  i feel the same.  but we belong to the hysterical motherland, and we are forever nostalgic for it. is fear of appropriation a hysterical symtom? can we love it? 

this morning john gasperoni unpacked the path to hysteria… allow me to summarize:

for the hysteric, the origional object of satisfaction was unsatisfying, setting the precident for eternal dissatisfaction. no one, nothing, is satisfying.  and if this origional object was satisfied by the hyseric, as an object, this was unbearable.  ie: if i’m not satisfied, i sure as hell don’t want to satisfy you, fucker! passivity is intolerable.  this leads to the refusal of the right of the big O to give them a place in discourse.  THE REFUSAL OF APPROPRIATION, i believe.  all of our work, are we repeating and repeating this passionate refusal?  do i care?

but love, love, my lovesickness kicks in… my love… is ‘a.  this… the real… cannot be touched.  and i revel in that notion. 

Adenneu,

As I think of appropriation I am thinking of arrangments. And as we begin to arrange and rearrange=why not invite a “master” or “mistress” flower designer  into our group as a plus one. There are several reasons I think of this. One it is working with surfaces, it is learning how to begin to coordinate, foreground, background, shade, difference so as to pronounce difference but at the same time present them togehter in a way that holds. It struck me this might be interesting as an idea to open to our cartel. Also, something about arranging out of the wild….to bring something fresh forth into and from our group perhaps this might lend itself to also offering us a quiter ground to consider arrangements. I am not sure how Kristopher would fee about this, but am sure he will weigh in soon.     

A measure of “good” Love is that which is appropriated through “good” attachments ”marriage as a model” .  Perhaps even marriage or partnership with same sex (in liberal circles) focus is on good healthy attachment. 

The measure of a successful analysis in on “good healthy attachments” modeled on heteronormative “practices”.

Then love is to marriage is== what symptom is to psychoanalysis.

Commitment to “submission”.= Commitment to socialization.=Commitment to appropropriation=Commitment to appropriating others=the mind is a territory, the unconscious remains uncharted.  

Psychoanalysis is frequently a moral psychoanalysis which brings up back to religion, state and church intervening through the appearance of “the radical liberation of psychoanalysis”. The idea here is that if the symptom is appropriated then the subject will be more “comfortable” and this is of course true due to the comforts that appropriation offer in exchange for submission.

I am thinking that maybe we also set a deadline for our cartel where we present and my latest thinking on this as that we present to the desert. We take a trip to Death Valley and perhaps present our work at a hot spring in a desert some place that is inappropriate(d). If we think about production and where we write and where we go then perhaps this might enable us to also observe the way we appropriate or inappropriate our language….it might allow us to speak more closely to locations that are less traveled…I am thinking of Trinh Minh HA’s photos in the desert and her multimedia work around this topic…allows her to get into so many different places and then articulate the folds of her work.

I am thinking about remainders..scraps..throw away…those pieces cut away on the couch, at the alter, we can begin to address a return….The inappropriated only dissappears through the imagination…of “full appropriation”…marriage…analysis. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.. never underestimate the object a.  

Rebecca  

is inappropriate(d) discourse mainly that which is outside of the male imaginary/symbolic register?  is this a new kind of word often confused with illicit that can represent an entre into a world populated with S1s?  is that what all the excitement is about?  the waking up, the serendipity of meeting the right stranger?

 we are frantically searching the sky, our blood, our books for this place where we feel unappropriated. (a quest for true love?)  this is the real, we are up and down and all around in our sinthome.  maybe this place, this fourth register, is where we are inappropriate(d).  so now, i suppose we must learn to speak from that place, knowing something will be lost, knowing something will be found.  perhaps that what this tricky techy blogging is meant to be about. 

I take on for the fun of it and the need of it a Celine approach with three..dots….fragmented sentences….and a cynicism regarding my impoverished surroundings…..I serve in a vacuum…a desert of the mind…half asleep at times to get by here…questioning the death of not the body….not god….but the death of the interior..the dimensions within space and time that might hold us to a sharper remembering and description something personal.. but what a risk that is…what is it the personal…..I don’t know…without it we sleep robotically while we are awake….with it we wake up into the pain of what we won’t notice anymore..what would noticing get us.anyway…better to get a house in the suburbs and a diamond rock on our fingers…better to parade around as a ‘psychoanalyst” than risk having.the light that hits the street cascade those memories of that year in Morrocco…when noone knew you were writing poems in a self imposed imprisonment, within the thick air of unfamiliar spices and swarms of gazes…that would never be able to read you. but this is how you were able to write…the looks were only questioning…just questioning…. Daggers weren’t being thrown your way…just a resonance that there is much more than meets the eye..if you are willing to look at the hard spaces. beyond identity and belonging. and institutional well-being. That being said…Lacan devised teh small group the small cartel….so that we might speak freely in our small groups without the pressure of such a Big (BR) Other….allowing us to play a bit…with those authors…and shades of light…and thoughts….that we might not be so pressured to give up as we converse and learn from one another….as we write into our future…. . .

As we move into the year 2009, I am aware that our lutecium blog has been asleep. It is time to wake up the blog. Wake-up..Wake up…the unconscious doesn’t sleep.

Heading into our cartel….I take up the work of the clinic of the REAL within the classroom….I am writing about the idea of transmission vs. education utilizing Lacan’s later understanding of the sinthome, joui-sens and the confusions that abounds when the didactic is utilized for total appropriation…rather than knowledge follows the course of the borromean knot. The most natural impass would exist between the symbolic and imaginary…..generating an inhibition due to the anticipation of a later stage of the analytic work regarding the overlap between the symbolic and the real—those facilitating didactic analytic work who have not resolved this most critical aspect of their own analytic journey make great policeman in the classroom, but preempt psychoanalytic transmission and full speech in the didactic. The didactic is a most critical space of learning in the three areas of training supervision, personal psychoanalysis, and the didactic training….my interest is in attempting to articulate transmission….within a Lacanian oriented training through incorporating the works of Lacan’s later seminars. The third generation has diligently and steadfastly offered us the most invaluable link to our generations most radical social creative and precise psychoanalytic thinkers Zizek, Badiou, Declercq, Siboni, Verheage, Forrest Hamer, David Marriott, Trinh Minh HA, Eric Gann continue Lacan’s/Freud’s work–in this most radical and at the same time open fashion offering us, the fourth generation, a most beautiful tradition, a future. Wake-up wake-up…It’s our time… wake up.

r