On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Hictor Escobar Sotomayor wrote:
> >Many
>
>
> Hi every one.
> I see this translation to English but there are problems
>
>
> >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jln wrote:
> >
> >> An English translation follows:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >YOU COULD SEND THIS FRENCH TEXT JUST ONLY TO THE ONE WHO NEEDS IT. WE DO
> >> >NOT KNOW FRENCH....
> >> >CETO FROM,,,,,
> >>
> >> "Lacan, le 'liberateur' de la psychanalyse" (from:
> >> >> Dits et Ecrits 1954-1988 tome IV ed. Daniel Defert et Francois Ewald
> >> >> Editions Gallimard, pp204-205) without accents via e-mail (the original
> >> >> version is to be found in an Italian periodical, "Corriere della sera,"
> >> >> vol. 106, no. 212, 11 Sept. 1981, p.1; it was an interview with
> >> >> J. Nobecourt):
> >> >>
> >> >> --On a l'habitude de dire que Lacan a ete le protagoniste d'une
> >> >> "revolution de la psychanalyse." Pensez-vous que cette definition de
> >> >> "revolutionnaire" soit exacte et acceptable?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Je crois que Lacan aurait refuse ce terme de "revolutionnaire" et
> >> >> l'idee meme d'une "revolution en psychanalyse." Il voulait simplement
> >> >> etre "psychanalyste." Ce qui supposait a ses yeux une rupture violente
> >> >> avec tout ce qui tendait a faire dependre la psychanalyse de la
> >> >> psychiatrie ou a en faire un chapitre un peu sophistique de la
> >> >> psychologie. Il voulait soustraire la psychanalyse a la proximite, qu'il
> >> >> considerait comme dangereuse, de la medecine et des institutions
> >> >> medicales. Il cherchait en elle non pas un processus de normalisation
> >> >> des comportements, mais une theorie du sujet. C'est pourquoi, malgre une
> >> >> apparence de discours extremement speculatif, sa pensee n'est pas
> >> >> etrangere a tous les efforts qui ont ete faits pour remettre en question
> >> >> les pratiques de la medecine mentale.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Si Lacan, comme vous le dites, n'a pas ete un "revolutionnaire," il
> >> >> est, toutefois, certain que ses oeuvres ont eu une tres grande influence
> >> >> sur la culture des dernieres decennies. Qu'est-ce qui a change apres
> >> >> Lacan, egalement dans la facon de "faire" de la culture?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Qu'est-ce qui a change? Si je remonte aux annees cinquante, a l'epoque
> >> >> ou l'etudiant que j'etais lisait les oeuvres de Levi-Strauss et les
> >> >> premiers textes de Lacan, il me semble que la vouveaute etait la
> >> >> suivante: nous decouvrions que la philosophie et les sciences humaines
> >> >> vivaient sur une conception tres traditionelle du sujet humain, et qu'il
> >> >> ne suffisait pas de dire, tantot avec les uns, que le sujet etait
> >> >> radicalement libre et, tantot avec lees autres, qu'il etait determine par
> >> >> des conditions sociales. Nous decouvrions qu'il fallait chercher a
> >> >> libere tout ce qui se cache derriere l'emploi apparemment simple du
> >> >> pronom "je." Le sujet: une chose complexe, fragile, dont il est
> >> >> difficile de parler, et sans laquelle nous ne pouvons pas parler.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Lacan eut beaucoup d'adversaires. Il fut accuse d'hermetisme et de
> >> >> "terrorisme intellectuel." Que pensez-vous de ces accusations?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Je pense que l'hermetisme de Lacan est du au fait qu'il voulait que la
> >> >> lecture de ses textes ne soit pas simplement une "prise de conscience" de
> >> >> ses idees. Il voulait que le lecteur se decouvre lui-meme, comme sujet
> >> >> de desir, a travers cette lecture. Lacan voulait que l'obscurite de ses
> >> >> "Ecrits" (My way of designating the title of L's work) fut la complexite
> >> >> meme du sujet, et que le travail necessaire pour le comprendre fut un
> >> >> travail a realiser sur soi-meme. Quant au "terrorisme," je ferai
> >> >> simplement remarquer une chose: Lacan n'exercait aucun pouvoir
> >> >> institutionnel. Ceux qui l'ecoutaient voulaient precisement l'ecouter.
> >> >> Il ne terrorisait que ceux qui avaient peur. L'influence que l'on exerce
> >> >> ne peut jamais etre un pouvoir que l'on impose.
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here goes the translation from Corriere della sera (Evening
> >> Courier from Milan I believe):
> >>
> >> C: People are in the habit of saying that Lacan was the
> >> promoter of a "revolution in psychiatry". Do you think that
> >> this designation as a "revolutionary" is accurate and
> >> acceptable?
> >>
> >> F: I believe that Lacan would have rejected the term
> >> "revolutionary" as well as the very idea of a "revolution in
> >> psychiatry". He wanted simply to be a "psychoanalyst". In
> >> his view that presupposed a violent break with all that
> >> tended to make psychoanalysis dependent on psychiatry or to
> >> make of it a slightly sophistical chapter in psychology. He
> >> wanted to remove psychiatry from any proximity, which he
> >> considered dangerous, to medicine and medical institutions.
> >> He sought in it [psychoanalysis] not a process for
> >> normalizing behaviors, but a theory of the subject. That is
> >> why, in spite of an appearance of extremely speculative
> >> discourse, his thought is not unfamiliar with all those
> >> efforts that have been made to place in question the
> >> practices of mental medicine.
> >>
> >> C: If Lacan, as you say, was not a "revolutionary", it is
> >> none the less sure that his works have had a very great
> >> influence on culture in these last decades. What has
> >> changed after Lacan, particularly in the manner of "making"
> >> culture?
> >>
> >> F: What has changed? If I think back to the fifties, to the
> >> time when as a student I read the works of Levi-Straus and
> >> the first texts of Lacan, it seems to me that the novelty
> >> was this: we were discovering that philosophy and the human
> >> sciences were living with a very traditional conception of
> >> the human subject, and that it did not suffice to say with
> >> the one side, that the subject was radically free, nor with
> >> the other that it was determined by social conditions. We
> >> were discovering that it was necessary to seek to liberate
> >> all that was hidden behind the apparently simply use of the
> >> pronoun "I". The subject: a thing complex and fragile, of
> >> which it is difficult to speak, and without which we cannot
> >> speak .
> >>
> >> C: Lacan had many adversaries. He was accused of hermeticism
> >> and "intellectual terrorism". What do you think of these
> >> accusations?
> >>
> >> F; I think that the hermeticism of Lacan results from the
> >> fact that he wanted the reading of his texts to be not just
> >> a simple "awakening of consciousness" about ideas. He
> >> wanted the reader to discover himself, as a subject of
> >> desire, by means of this reading. Lacan wanted the
> >> obscurity of his "Writings" to be the very complexity of the
> >> subject, and the work necessary for understanding to be work
> >> to be accomplished on oneself. As for the "terrorism", I
> >> would simply note one thing: Lacan did not exercise any
> >> institutional power. Those who listened to him wanted
> >> precisely to here him. He only terrorized those who were
> >> afraid. The influence that one wields can never be a power
> >> that one imposes
> >>
> Problems.
>
> 1) P and others (French)Psychanalyse English (Psychiatry)
> Psychoanalisis and Psychiatry are different things. In fact
> psychoanalysys is revolutionary in relation to psychiatry an
> psychology. But as the french version sustains Lacan didn't want to
> be a revolutionary in psychoanalysis. He intends "return to
> Freud". To offer a reading of Freud contrary to the reading of Ego psychology.
> Questions:
> Which is the original one, French or italian version?
> Which word is used in the Italian version Psychoanalysis or Psychiatry?
> Which word is the original one?
>
> Thanks
> Hector Escobar
> "Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto"
> Hector Escobar Sotomayor
> hescobar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
Escobar, many thanks to you due to your help in translation.
CETO
------------------
> >Many
>
>
> Hi every one.
> I see this translation to English but there are problems
>
>
> >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jln wrote:
> >
> >> An English translation follows:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >YOU COULD SEND THIS FRENCH TEXT JUST ONLY TO THE ONE WHO NEEDS IT. WE DO
> >> >NOT KNOW FRENCH....
> >> >CETO FROM,,,,,
> >>
> >> "Lacan, le 'liberateur' de la psychanalyse" (from:
> >> >> Dits et Ecrits 1954-1988 tome IV ed. Daniel Defert et Francois Ewald
> >> >> Editions Gallimard, pp204-205) without accents via e-mail (the original
> >> >> version is to be found in an Italian periodical, "Corriere della sera,"
> >> >> vol. 106, no. 212, 11 Sept. 1981, p.1; it was an interview with
> >> >> J. Nobecourt):
> >> >>
> >> >> --On a l'habitude de dire que Lacan a ete le protagoniste d'une
> >> >> "revolution de la psychanalyse." Pensez-vous que cette definition de
> >> >> "revolutionnaire" soit exacte et acceptable?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Je crois que Lacan aurait refuse ce terme de "revolutionnaire" et
> >> >> l'idee meme d'une "revolution en psychanalyse." Il voulait simplement
> >> >> etre "psychanalyste." Ce qui supposait a ses yeux une rupture violente
> >> >> avec tout ce qui tendait a faire dependre la psychanalyse de la
> >> >> psychiatrie ou a en faire un chapitre un peu sophistique de la
> >> >> psychologie. Il voulait soustraire la psychanalyse a la proximite, qu'il
> >> >> considerait comme dangereuse, de la medecine et des institutions
> >> >> medicales. Il cherchait en elle non pas un processus de normalisation
> >> >> des comportements, mais une theorie du sujet. C'est pourquoi, malgre une
> >> >> apparence de discours extremement speculatif, sa pensee n'est pas
> >> >> etrangere a tous les efforts qui ont ete faits pour remettre en question
> >> >> les pratiques de la medecine mentale.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Si Lacan, comme vous le dites, n'a pas ete un "revolutionnaire," il
> >> >> est, toutefois, certain que ses oeuvres ont eu une tres grande influence
> >> >> sur la culture des dernieres decennies. Qu'est-ce qui a change apres
> >> >> Lacan, egalement dans la facon de "faire" de la culture?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Qu'est-ce qui a change? Si je remonte aux annees cinquante, a l'epoque
> >> >> ou l'etudiant que j'etais lisait les oeuvres de Levi-Strauss et les
> >> >> premiers textes de Lacan, il me semble que la vouveaute etait la
> >> >> suivante: nous decouvrions que la philosophie et les sciences humaines
> >> >> vivaient sur une conception tres traditionelle du sujet humain, et qu'il
> >> >> ne suffisait pas de dire, tantot avec les uns, que le sujet etait
> >> >> radicalement libre et, tantot avec lees autres, qu'il etait determine par
> >> >> des conditions sociales. Nous decouvrions qu'il fallait chercher a
> >> >> libere tout ce qui se cache derriere l'emploi apparemment simple du
> >> >> pronom "je." Le sujet: une chose complexe, fragile, dont il est
> >> >> difficile de parler, et sans laquelle nous ne pouvons pas parler.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Lacan eut beaucoup d'adversaires. Il fut accuse d'hermetisme et de
> >> >> "terrorisme intellectuel." Que pensez-vous de ces accusations?
> >> >>
> >> >> --Je pense que l'hermetisme de Lacan est du au fait qu'il voulait que la
> >> >> lecture de ses textes ne soit pas simplement une "prise de conscience" de
> >> >> ses idees. Il voulait que le lecteur se decouvre lui-meme, comme sujet
> >> >> de desir, a travers cette lecture. Lacan voulait que l'obscurite de ses
> >> >> "Ecrits" (My way of designating the title of L's work) fut la complexite
> >> >> meme du sujet, et que le travail necessaire pour le comprendre fut un
> >> >> travail a realiser sur soi-meme. Quant au "terrorisme," je ferai
> >> >> simplement remarquer une chose: Lacan n'exercait aucun pouvoir
> >> >> institutionnel. Ceux qui l'ecoutaient voulaient precisement l'ecouter.
> >> >> Il ne terrorisait que ceux qui avaient peur. L'influence que l'on exerce
> >> >> ne peut jamais etre un pouvoir que l'on impose.
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here goes the translation from Corriere della sera (Evening
> >> Courier from Milan I believe):
> >>
> >> C: People are in the habit of saying that Lacan was the
> >> promoter of a "revolution in psychiatry". Do you think that
> >> this designation as a "revolutionary" is accurate and
> >> acceptable?
> >>
> >> F: I believe that Lacan would have rejected the term
> >> "revolutionary" as well as the very idea of a "revolution in
> >> psychiatry". He wanted simply to be a "psychoanalyst". In
> >> his view that presupposed a violent break with all that
> >> tended to make psychoanalysis dependent on psychiatry or to
> >> make of it a slightly sophistical chapter in psychology. He
> >> wanted to remove psychiatry from any proximity, which he
> >> considered dangerous, to medicine and medical institutions.
> >> He sought in it [psychoanalysis] not a process for
> >> normalizing behaviors, but a theory of the subject. That is
> >> why, in spite of an appearance of extremely speculative
> >> discourse, his thought is not unfamiliar with all those
> >> efforts that have been made to place in question the
> >> practices of mental medicine.
> >>
> >> C: If Lacan, as you say, was not a "revolutionary", it is
> >> none the less sure that his works have had a very great
> >> influence on culture in these last decades. What has
> >> changed after Lacan, particularly in the manner of "making"
> >> culture?
> >>
> >> F: What has changed? If I think back to the fifties, to the
> >> time when as a student I read the works of Levi-Straus and
> >> the first texts of Lacan, it seems to me that the novelty
> >> was this: we were discovering that philosophy and the human
> >> sciences were living with a very traditional conception of
> >> the human subject, and that it did not suffice to say with
> >> the one side, that the subject was radically free, nor with
> >> the other that it was determined by social conditions. We
> >> were discovering that it was necessary to seek to liberate
> >> all that was hidden behind the apparently simply use of the
> >> pronoun "I". The subject: a thing complex and fragile, of
> >> which it is difficult to speak, and without which we cannot
> >> speak .
> >>
> >> C: Lacan had many adversaries. He was accused of hermeticism
> >> and "intellectual terrorism". What do you think of these
> >> accusations?
> >>
> >> F; I think that the hermeticism of Lacan results from the
> >> fact that he wanted the reading of his texts to be not just
> >> a simple "awakening of consciousness" about ideas. He
> >> wanted the reader to discover himself, as a subject of
> >> desire, by means of this reading. Lacan wanted the
> >> obscurity of his "Writings" to be the very complexity of the
> >> subject, and the work necessary for understanding to be work
> >> to be accomplished on oneself. As for the "terrorism", I
> >> would simply note one thing: Lacan did not exercise any
> >> institutional power. Those who listened to him wanted
> >> precisely to here him. He only terrorized those who were
> >> afraid. The influence that one wields can never be a power
> >> that one imposes
> >>
> Problems.
>
> 1) P and others (French)Psychanalyse English (Psychiatry)
> Psychoanalisis and Psychiatry are different things. In fact
> psychoanalysys is revolutionary in relation to psychiatry an
> psychology. But as the french version sustains Lacan didn't want to
> be a revolutionary in psychoanalysis. He intends "return to
> Freud". To offer a reading of Freud contrary to the reading of Ego psychology.
> Questions:
> Which is the original one, French or italian version?
> Which word is used in the Italian version Psychoanalysis or Psychiatry?
> Which word is the original one?
>
> Thanks
> Hector Escobar
> "Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto"
> Hector Escobar Sotomayor
> hescobar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
Escobar, many thanks to you due to your help in translation.
CETO
------------------