New Semester at the Lacan Guided Reading Group: The Direction of Psychoanalytic Treatment

I am happy to announce our new reading seminar starting next week, Tuesday (20.8), 19h, at Stillpoint Spaces Berlin. This time we read one of Lacan’s notable papers printed in Écrits: “The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of Its Power.”

Here is a short description of the seminar that you can find on the Facebook event:

Following the death of Sigmund Freud (1939), a growing chasm was already dividing the psychoanalytic community of the mid 20th century. Each faction, with its own elected leaders, attested to different perspectives as to the nature of psychoanalysis, its relevance to Freud’s work and the paths one is to follow in the development of the treatment.

In the midst of this heated debate, Jacques Lacan delivered his paper, “The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of Its Power” (1958). Considered to be one of Lacan’s most straightforwardly written pieces, “The Direction of the Treatment” is a self-contained text that clarifies many of the themes presented in his seminars at the time (4-6). It is delivered as an intervention which defines Lacan’s position on the practicalities of psychoanalysis and explores several themes such as the function of interpretation, the power of transference, and the role of language, setting the bar for an ethics of psychoanalysis that adheres to Freud’s edifice.

This seminar will be the most “clinical” of the seminars in the Lacan Guided Reading Group yet. In it we will read a Lacanian text that is zealously addressed to clinicians situated at the intersection between ego-psychology, object-relation theory and Lacanian psychoanalysis. In this seminar we will address the centrality of the unconscious (structured like a language) in the analytic situation, the importance of the Symbolic in the experience of the subject and its unfolding in speech, the role of desire and, more specifically, the “desire of the analyst” in the direction of the treatment.

Format:
The reading of Lacan is done together as a group and is facilitated by Leon Brenner. No prior reading is required before our gatherings. We read the text slowly, trying to delve into each paragraph, deciphering Lacan’s unique style and extracting very straightforward and non-metaphorical ideas. Other than learning about the psychoanalysis of Lacan, we will also be learning how to read Lacan—a challenge in itself. Make sure to come with a receptive and light-hearted mood—the goal is to enjoy this reading together (if we want to). Reading material will be provided in each session.

Group sessions will be held every Tuesday, 19:00 – 20:30. (Please come on time)

Address:
The entrance to The Lab of Stillpoint Spaces Berlin is directly from the street Hobrechtstraße 66 – front building, ground floor (Vorderhaus, EG). We kindly ask you to arrive at least 15 minutes before the official beginning of the reading group. Please, do not ring on any of the doorbells, as our colleagues might be having counselling sessions.

Tickets

All are welcome. Warmly,

Leon Brenner

Open Day: Lacanian Psychoanalysis on the Street

by Aghi

Have you always wanted to know more about Jacques Lacan and psychoanalysis but haven’t found the right company?

We are a group of individuals coming from diverse scientific, artistic, and cultural backgrounds sharing an affinity for the work of Jacques Lacan. Our work together in the last year has inspired us to expand our circle and open our doors. We would like to invite you to get to know us, enjoy good music and wine, and take part in a dialogue about Lacanian psychoanalysis on the street.

In our Lacan Guided Reading Group at Stillpoint Spaces Berlin, we have explored the concept of the “lamella.” The work on this topic had inspired us to organize an open day in which we will host an exhibition and launch our Lacanian fanzine, both titled Lamella.

Join us on the 25th of May between 16:00 and 22:00h at Stillpoint Spaces Berlin. Address: Hobrechtstraße 66, 12047 Berlin.

Program
16:00h – Opening of Lamella exhibition (by Aghi)
18:00h – Informal meeting with the members of the Lacanian Affinities Berlin (laLAB)
19:00h – Short talk: Finding Your Way in Lacan
20:00h – Lamella fanzine launch: Open Discussion
21:00h – Talk with artist Aghi
22:00h – Closing doors

”Lamella”
The “lamella” is a mythical depiction of the Freudian “libido” conceived by Jacques Lacan. The myth of the lamella portrays libido as an uncanny disembodied organ, shed by the living being at the moment of sexual reproduction. It is an organ, since it is an instrument of the organism. However, it is an “unreal” organ, lacking mass or substance, an indefinitely malleable and indestructible surface that perpetually traverses the body’s instincts of survival.

Exhibition
Inspired by the group’s work on the “lamella,” visual artist Aghi has chosen to further investigate the excessive nature of this disembodied organ in the urban landscape. On several excursions, Aghi explored urban landscapes of discarded matter, trying to capture possible manifestations of the “lamella.”
Aghi is a visual artist who explores the relationship between photography, poetry and psychology. His publications appeared in several international magazines and he had two solo exhibitions in Milan and Rome. More of Aghi on https://www.aghi.es

Fanzine
The Lamella fanzine is a quarterly publication bringing together the work of the members of the Lacan Guided Reading Group and Lacanian Affinities Berlin (laLAB). The fanzine embodies fabrications, ruminations, critiques and conclusions revolving around the group’s work on the subject of Lacanian psychoanalysis. It will be available in a limited amount of copies distributed on the day of the event.

Lacanian Affinities Berlin
Lacanian Affinities Berlin (laLAB) is a group composed of many individuals with an affinity for the work of Jacques Lacan coming from a plurality of backgrounds and cultural origins. The group was founded by Leon Brenner in Stillpoint Spaces Berlin, and its many ventures include: academic seminars, workshops, artistic projects, community events, and more.

Music by Gal Kadan

The entrance to the event is free of charge.

New Spring Semester for the Lacan Guided Reading Group

It is time for a new semester at the Lacan Guided Reading Group. Our spring semester will begin on the 5th of March (19:15) and, as was festively announced last week, will involve the reading of two chapters in Lacan’s Seminar XX: On Feminine Sexuality, the Limits of Love and Knowledge (Encore)  (1972-1973).

(Collage: Jorge Chamorro)

“The great question that has never been answered and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?’” (Freud)

Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) was a French psychiatrist who has been dubbed the most controversial psychoanalyst since Freud. Calling for a “return to Freud” in mid 20th century Europe, Lacan had re-conceptualized psychoanalysis in such ways that deeply impacted psychotherapy and philosophy up until this day. One of the major topics Lacan chose to penetrate in his teaching is the notion of sexual difference. Freud, in his account of sexual difference, argued that the whole range of human sexuality is solely determined on the basis of the phallus. Accordingly, he inferred that there is only one form of libido—masculine libido. Going beyond Freud’s rendition of feminine libido in his notion of “penis envy,” Lacan provided a subversive account of a singular form of feminine enjoyment in his teaching. He argued that, while masculine subjects only have access to phallic enjoyment (“enjoyment of the Idiot”), feminine subjects are “not-all” (pas-tout) subsumed by the phallus and have access to another form of enjoyment “beyond the phallus.” Lacan’s Seminar XX is devoted to the exploration of such an evasive mode of enjoyment that Freud found it impossible to know anything about. 

In the Lacan Guided Reading Group, we will trace Lacan’s train of thought concerning masculine and feminine enjoyment by reading two chapters from this seminar entitled: “God and Woman’s Jouissance” and “A Love Letter.” What is an enjoyment beyond the phallus? What is so mystifying about feminine enjoyment? And what is knowledge of sexual difference? 

Join us for the reading of Jacques Lacan’s Seminar XX: On Feminine Sexuality, the Limits of Love and Knowledge (Encore) (1972-1973).

Format:

The reading of Lacan is done together as a group and is facilitated by Leon Brenner. No prior reading is required before our gatherings. We read the text slowly, trying to delve into each paragraph, deciphering Lacan’s unique style and extracting very straightforward and non-metaphorical ideas. Other than learning about the psychoanalysis of Lacan, we will also be learning how to read Lacan—a challenge in itself. Make sure to come with a receptive and light-hearted mood—the goal is to enjoy this reading together (if we want to). Reading material will be distributed in each session.

Group sessions will be held every Tuesday, 19:00 – 20:30 (March 3, 12, 19 & 26; April 2, 9, 16 & 30; May 7, 14, 21 & 28; More to be announced).

Facilitator:

Leon Brenner is a teacher and a scholar specializing in the fields of Lacanian psychoanalysis, contemporary French philosophy and autism theory. Brenner has graduated with the highest honor a B.A and M.A in Psychology and Philosophy. His doctoral dissertation concerns the subject of autism in philosophy and is entitled, The Autistic Subject: On the Threshold of Language. Brenner has received two excellence awards as a junior university teacher: the University Rector excellence award, and the Deanship excellence award. He is currently engaged in several scholarly and artistic projects in Berlin and is a resident instructor at Stillpoint Spaces Berlin.

Address: 

The entrance to The Lab of Stillpoint Spaces Berlin is directly from the street Hobrechtstraße 66 – front building, ground floor (Vorderhaus, EG). We kindly ask you to arrive at least 15 minutes before the official beginning of the reading group. Please, do not ring on any of the doorbells, as our colleagues might be having counseling sessions.

I hope to see you all in our new semester.

Leon Brenner

 

Christmas Break for the Lacan Guided Reading Group in Berlin

The Lacan guided reading group will take a two week vacation in light of the holidays. We will see each other again on the 8th of January, as usual, at 19h – Stillpoint Spaces, Berlin. This January we will start working on our last topic for the current reading round – the love triangle between Socrates, Agathon, and Alcibiades.

In muslim theology one can find a truism that might clarify what would be at stake in our work to come (what we have associated with orthe doxa), it roughly goes like this: Whenever a man is alone with a woman, the devil is the third one present. For the sake of our discussion we will interpret it in the following way: Whenever a lover is alone with a beloved, the object is the third one present. This object, the object cause, will be the main focus of our discussion in the following weeks. It’s function in love, and in transference-love, will be our topic.

Happy holidays, and hope to see you soon.

Leon Brenner

Plato's_Symposium_-_Anselm_Feuerbach_-_Google_Cultural_Institute
Anselm Feuerbach (1869), Plato’s Symposium

Lacan and his Animals

While Lacan’s demeanor, and the general atmosphere in his seminars at the Sainte-Anne hospital, can be said to characterize a zoo, it is Lacan’s explicit reference to animals that will be our main interest today. Being a loving dog owner himself (naming his beloved dog Justine after the eponymous sex slave of the Marquis de Sade book), Lacan relies on the help of a variety of animals when addressing some of Freud’s most intricate psychoanalytical models. These would include: cats, dogs, birds, fish, turtles, lions, giraffes, lobsters, and many more. But what does Lacan really think about his animals? And more precisely, where does he situate animals in relation to speaking beings (i.e. humans)?

zizekcat

Žižek with Cat

Do Animals Speak?

According to Lacan (1953-1954), many animals can be considered to “speak” (in a sense) when they are in pain, or call out for help when they are in need. “You have only to observe a pet to see that a being deprived of language is quite capable of making calls on you, calls to draw your attention to something which, in some sense or other, it lacks.” (p. 84). Nevertheless, Lacan insists that while animals are disposed to use the call, or in other words, to articulate a demand, they still lack access to the dimension of the signifier, and thus to the symbolic means through which human reality is constructed.

In his early paper on the Mirror Stage (1949), Lacan relegates animal-language to a correspondance between images hardwired on the level of animal instinct. In this sense, the mere encounter with the figure of an adult pigeon – even as a reflection in the mirror – can bring to the sexual maturation of a female pigeon (p. 77). In his seminar on The Psychoses (1955-1956) Lacan develops this idea and argues that, in the same way, when a female robin sees that red of the male robin’s breast, she undertakes a series of actions and behaviors that “link the bearer of this sign to its perceiver” [i.e. she goes cuckoo for her mani] (p. 167). This time Lacan adds that this kind of linguistic correspondance is not achieved on the basis of signifiers, but is based on signs and more specifically iconic signs.

In a previous post, I have argued that while signifiers engender meaning through the dynamic and differential relationships they establish with other signifiers, the sign has only one referent to which it is rigidly linked alongside any context through which it was acquired. In this sense, the sign “cat” would signify a specific cat, met on a specific rainy day, while on a sunny day the sign “cat” would not refer to the same individual cat met on that same rainy day. Or in the case of laboratory rats, pressing the level only means food when the light bulb flashes. Accordingly, we see that animal-language is very sensitive to the qualities of its signs. It can be used by animals in acquiring crucial knowledge, but this knowledge must be meticulously orchestrated in order to convey a clear message.

kisspng-bird-watercolor-painting-architecture-in-watercolo-red-sparrow-5a9ce496cc1731.061419721520231574836

“How you doin’?”

“War is War”:

A crucial distinction between a language composed of signifiers (i.e. human language) and animal-language can be found in the way we interact with out pets – especially those disposed to our use of language (some of us talk to our cats…). It was B.F. Skinner (1904–90), one of the fathers of behaviorism, which articulated something that many pet owners knew quite a long time before his experiments with boxes. That is, that animals have the capacity to learn equivalences – “bad boy!” means punishment, “good boy!” means treat. This way we can gain common grounds in our household – using signs. Nevertheless, it is exactly the fact that some equivalences convey no equivalence at all which evades the reach of animal-sign-language. This point is clearly marked out by Lacan in his seminar on Identification (1961-1962), when he argues the equation “A is A” does not represent a simple equivalence (tautology) when A is taken to be a signifier. When I teach a dog that “good boy!” means a treat, I do not have to go to great length in order to make sure that he knows that a treat is a treat (and not something else). Nevertheless, while some of us might be prosaically moved by such phrases like “war is war”, I am pretty convinced that a dog will keep his composure when faced with such a notion – taking it as a simple tautology (a treat is in fact equivalent to itself). But when I say, “war is war”, or “Lacan is Lacan”, I do not aim to convey a simple equivalence. “War is war” means that it is brutal, unfair, that people die in war. “Lacan is Lacan” means, well… more than Lacan is himself, or exactly that he is what he is, which is… (fill in the blank). While we humans – creatures of the signifier – can grasp that we can mean a lot more by saying the same, for animals, the same remains the same – repetition retains no difference (in contrast to what Deleuze would say).

This unique symbolic capacity is captured in the very human aptitude to lie by telling the truth. An ability which is perfectly depicted in a joke Freud tells about two Jewish people talking in a train station. This joke is worth being quoted at length – after which I will leave you to ruminate on the Kantian notion that dictates that one should always tell the truth.

Strangers-on-a-Train-2-26-the-meeting-thefilmbook_170110_213255

Hitchcock, Strangers on a Train (1951)

The Joke:

“Two Jews met in a railway carriage at a station in Galicia. ‘Where are you going?’ asked one. ‘To Cracow’, was the answer. ‘What a liar you are!’ broke out the other. ‘If you say you’re going to Cracow, you want me to believe you’re going to Lemberg. But I know that in fact you’re going to Cracow. So why are you lying to me?'” (Freud, Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, p. 115)

***

Lacan Guided Reading Group \ Berlin

Dear readers,

I am happy to invite you to our new reading session starting Tuesday (29/05), 19:00, at our round table at Stillpoint Spaces, Berlin (66, Hobrechtstraße, 12047 Berlin). This time we are going to tackle a chapter from Lacan’s 11th seminar. This is exciting because the topic of “alienation and separation” is central in Lacan’s teaching (as well as fascinating), and also because we are going to read a seminar and not a printed paper for the first time. Seminar XI is one of the most “approachable” seminars provided by Lacan, and I hope we will enjoy reading it together.

Here is some information from the Facebook Event:

Link: https://www.facebook.com/events/2118414028437706/

Jacques Lacan was a French psychoanalyst who has been regarded to as the most controversial psychoanalyst since Freud. Teaching in Paris in the 20th century, his ideas had a significant impact on post-structuralism, critical theory, linguistics, French philosophy, film theory, and clinical psychoanalysis up until this day.

In 1964, Lacan introduces the concepts of alienation and separation, indicating a break with his previous mapping of the unconscious. Introduced in his seminar as logical operators, they provide a deeper understanding of Freud’s notion of sexuality and the drives. Incorporating some of his most fundamental concepts such as “lack”, “object petit a”, and “jouissance”, Lacan’s account of alienation and separation provides one of his most comprehensive elaborations of human subjectivity.

Join us for our guided reading group, in which we will read the 16th chapter in Lacan’s Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, entitled: “The Subject and the Other: Alienation”.

The Format:
The reading will be done together as a group, and will be guided by Leon Brenner. No reading is required (nor recommended) before our gatherings. We are going to read the text slowly, trying to delve into each paragraph, deciphering Lacan’s unique style, and extracting very straightforward and non-metaphorical ideas. Other than leaning about the psychoanalysis of Lacan, we will also be learning how to read and tackle Lacan. We will read the English version of the text, but people capable of reading Lacan’s French are encouraged to bring the original French version. Make sure to come with a receptive and light-hearted mood – the goal is to enjoy this reading together (if we want to).

Groups will be held on Tuesdays (May 29; June 5, 12, 19, 26; July 10, 17, 24, 31), 19:00 – 20:30. More dates may be added during the process.

Hope to see you at our round table.

Leon

IMG_4012.jpg

Autistic Sameness: Lacan with Amanda Baggs

Leo Kanner, an American psychologist, was one of the first practitioners to differentiate what we know today as “autism” from the field of childhood psychosis. Assessing a variety of characteristics in the behaviour of his autistic patients, he went on to identify two main behavioural categories – aloneness, and sameness. Aloneness is characterised by Kanner as the autistic child’s non-communicability, avoidance of eye contact, and general disinterest in others. Kanner reports that autistic children often spend the day in solitude, ignoring and excluding anything situated outside their closed-off inner world. Sameness is defined by Kanner as the autistic child’s anxious and obsessive preference for order and repetition. Kanner reports that any change in routine can lead the autistics to experience a surge of unbearable anxiety. Thus, in the aim of warding off this anxiety, the autistic child meticulously keeps the world in the same state, situating things in the same place, and in the same order they were discovered in the first place.

In today’s clinic of autism these two diagnostic categories have dissipated into what is defined as Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This “spectrum” is demarcated by two diagnostic categories, that of the low functioning and the high functioning autistic. These categories are determined in accordance to a list of behavioural and sensory criteria, accumulating into a person’s exact designation on the spectrum. Be that as it may, the Lacanian clinic of autism refuses to adopt this quantitive approach and offers a variety of qualitatively distinct diagnostic criteria for autism. Taking into account the subject’s relation to language, and accordingly, the way in which the subject utilises language in the mediation and treatment of jouissance.

Jouissance, which could be translated to English as “enjoyment” (yet it shouldn’t), is a well established Lacanian notion, complexifying Freud’s account of the libido, and his economic model in general. For the sake of our discussion today we will just view it as an excess of excitation which is rooted in the subject’s body and mediated by language. Because one of the most basic Lacanian characterisations of autistic subjectivity is a limited access to language, in the Lacanian clinic we say that autistics have a hard time regulating their jouissance. Without access to the signifier, jouissance runs wild, it has no limit, no border; invading the body from the outside, and tormenting the subject with unbearable bursts of excitation. Two strategies autistic subjects employ in order to protect themselves from such invasions of jouissance can be associated with Kanner’s account of aloneness and sameness. First, through their radical division from the outside world (aloneness), and their encapsulation in what Margaret Mahler had defined as the “autistic shell”, autistics protect themselves from the anxiety accompanying their unbridled jouissance. Autistics solely disposed to aloneness are usually diagnosed by clinicians as low functioning autistics, as they barely behave in ways which can be defined by psychologists as “adaptive”. Sameness, on the other hand, can be better discerned in the autistic use of language. Through their use of different signs they pickup from their environment – usually signs entailing a specific and constant patterns – autistics signify their world, providing it with a sense of predictability and order.

Lacan explicitly argues that autistics are “rather verbose”. That is, they are subjects of language. But, lacking access to the domain of the signifier, they are strictly disposed to the logic of sign. Now, the difference between a “sign language” and a language composed of signifiers is accounted for by Lacan, but yet again will not be deliberated today. We can simply say that there’s a big difference between the two. A difference which effects the nature and composition of the language used by autistic subjects, but more than anything, has a big effect on the capacity of language to mediate jouissance. While the signifier “quantifies” jouissance – it gives it meaning, which can be conveyed in words, and transmitted between subjects – the sign does not quantify jouissance, but can only “frame” it. Thus, we see how a language composed of signs can keep jouissance at bay, providing some solace for the autistic child, but cannot attribute transmittable meaning to his or her jouissance. In this sense, Jean-Claude Maleval argues that in autism there is an essential split between jouissance and language.

Nevertheless, there is way for autistics to use sign language in the exploration of their relation to jouissance. Through a language which “frames” jouissance, but cannot transmit it. This would be a “private language”, which “treats” jouissance, without making sense out of it; a language which provides the subject with an immediate access to jouissance, but not with its articulation. Similarly to the phenomena of synethstethia, it intersects emotional and sensory excitation, with a language composed of repetitive movements, sounds, tastes, etc. Through this language, the autistic gains a sense of mastery over jouissance, but is still disposed to a solitary state, as he or she cannot transmit this language to others.

In a very famous and moving youtube video, autistic subject and advocate, Amanda Baggs, attempts to explains her unique relation to language. Making sense of the world under her terms – “in my language” – she provides herself with an access to jouissance which seems alien to the unsuspecting eye. I suggest you spend nine minutes and watch this youtube clip. Try and view it as an utterly inventive language, through which Baggs opens a channel to her internal emotional and sensual world. Constructing a language which “frames” her jouissance, but does so at the price of cutting her from the people she loves as long as she drifts off into it.

Interview: Political Truth in the Age of Populism (Part I)

In the following link you can find the first part of an interview I have participated in, conducted by the talented Sokol Ferizi of Stillpoint Spaces, Berlin. The interview follows a lecture I gave on the subject of Truth in todays political climate entitled: Political Truth in the Age of Populism. In it we partake in a conversation revolving politics, populism, common liberal tactics, as well as the possibility of subversive and revolutionary politics. Mostly conveyed in colloquial and everyday language, it offers a glimpse into an interpretation of Alain Badiou’s philosophy of change.

Here is an official link:

https://blog.stillpointspaces.com/2018/04/political-truth-in-the-age-of-populism/

Pain, Memory, and Commemoration

Only a week ago, in Berlin, Germany, the memory of those devastated by the gruesome and calculated extermination carried out by the Germany of National-Socialism has been commemorated. As in every international Holocaust remembrance day, I come to ponder the memory we are commemorating. For most of us have not witnessed, nor survived, nor fought against, nor died while fighting, these forces. We are witnesses of these memories only in their re-writing, in their annual repetition. I also ask myself if these memories can retain their importance for the ones who are only the descendants of the humanity of that era? If in our commemoration, we are not only able to sketch the contours of what can never be truly recollected again?

In his book, Tashach (1948), gifted writer and holocaust surviver, Yoram Kaniuk, provides us with a definite answer. He argues that even he himself, a surviver, a fighting partisan, does not remember the “horrible pain” but only “remembers that he has pained”.

yoram-kaniuk-post

Yoram Kaniuk (Photograph by Marcel Molle)

The Wunderblock:

In his attempt to describe the mechanism of memory, Freud uses the metaphor of the Wunderblock. The Wunderblock (known in the 1980’s, in its developed version, as the “Etch A Sketch”) is an old children’s game composed of a board made of wax and a cellophane screen. The child draws on the screen with a plastic pencil leaving marks on the wax board. The Wunderblock is so “Wunder-ful” because it enables the child to pull off the screen from the wax board and make the drawing disappear. Nevertheless, when describing the Wunderblock, Freud insists that the drawings on the wax board is never fully erased, but carries a “remainder” which is indefinitely carved on the board. Freud argues that the mechanism of memory functions in the same way. The child’s etching on the cellophane screen akin to the conscious experience – constantly processing sensual stimuli. The wax board akin to the unconscious, the place where these experiences are copied and indefinitely preserved.

wunderblock

While Freud’s Wunderblock metaphor seems to be quite relevant for the description of the mechanism of memory in simple organisms, and even more developed animals, Lacan argues that it is not sufficient for the description of the memory of human beings (speaking-beings). For example, it is quite evident that my cat still acts in accordance to an exact copy of her experience of “horrible pain”. She was adopted after going through the hardships of the life on the street, and thus usually reacts with an immediate attack/flight whenever she experiences the tiniest of unidentified noises or movements in her surrounding. Every time she does so, it seems she is experiencing (in a concrete and unmediated way) that “horrible pain” at the root of her traumatic past. Nevertheless, when we talk about humans, memories do not function in the same exact way. That is because for us memory is not a mater of imprinting but of converting – the conversion into a signifier. Or in other words, the conversion of the “horrible pain” to the signifier that has “pained”.

What Keeps on Not Being Written:

For each one of us, the “horrible pain” at the root of our traumatic past can only be considered in terms of an object already lost. A Thing of the real, which was not directly inscribed in the unconscious, but converted to a signifier and only then retroactively inscribed. Accordingly, when Yoram Kaniuk argues that he “remembers that he has pained”, he represents that “horrible pain” with a signifier – he instates a signifier in the place of the real Thing. A Thing which was lost, which could have never been directly inscribed, but is only inscribed through its conversion.

Therefore, the memory of the holocaust can never be the memory of the Thing itself, but only its conversion to a signifier. For us, those who did not directly experience the “horrible pain”, it is a conversion of a conversion – an inscription of an inscription. A two-fold process, which is sometimes at the risk of losing its touch with the original traumatic core. That is why the commemoration taking place in the international Holocaust remembrance day is so crucial. It represents our collective insistence to inscribe that un-inscribable trauma, to find it a place in between the signifiers – in between ourselves. This is the only way the collective traumatic experience can find its place in the course of history. Through this paradoxical attempt. For the real can be made present, only in its absence, when it is eclipsed by the signifier.

memorial.png

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, Berlin

* Great thanks to the brilliant teacher, Gavriel Dahan, which gave a lecture on the 24.4.2015 on which this post is based upon.