Things are similar in the humanities. Here, attempts are made to straightforwardly define expressions or terms with mathematical logics in order for the term to appear "objective". In reality though, the determining was done a priori. Emmanuel Kant's 'thing as such" is much dependent on the words "as such" - as if this could award special value or even true reality or real truth to the thing, or 'chose' (fr.). Psychoanalysis is different. Psychoanalysis attempts to allow the individual to turn his insides out (through free association). This represents a completely new direction, one which can be described as a science of the subject. You let someone start babbling on whatever comes to his mind, or whatever he remembers of his dreams and then you sort the "material" according to systematic preferences. The "material" of the statements are allocated to the individual's ego to his super -- ego, ideal -- ego, ideal self or to a drive. Thereby, the individual obtains actual property over a truth/reality. The term "drive" plays a large role, but it is also not an object.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, attributed great biological significance to drives. Nevertheless, Freud did not consider drives to be derivatives of animal instincts. Sometimes, Freud called the drives "mythical entities, great in their uncertainty", thereby switching from the field of biology completely to that of the literary -- mythical. It was J.Lacan, who later on produced more clarity. He originated from linguistic science and said, that drives are actually significants, makers of significance, and highly of their own kind. There is no need for physics and humanities for this, psychoanalytic activity accomplishes this autonomously. Psychoanalytic activity consists mainly of "free association" and of "transference -- related interpretation" (meanings are transferred to the psychoanalyst, which he then interprets according to the measures of his science -- and this means, especially the reference of such means upon himself). Drives are principles of power, have always been and will always be in effect, and they need be given names.
Sigmund Freud gave them the names of eros-life drive and death drive (death wish). In science, you always reduce all of the parameters you arrive at to the least amount of basic elements, usually two or three. J. Lacan reformulated this concept slightly and compared a perception drive (drive to look) to an invocation drive (drive to speak). To simplify things, I called these principles of drives or of power "shines" and "speaks". This makes it easier to produce evidence for the universal validity of this science of the subject. So, naturally, it is not a problem in psychoanalysis to proceed with work according to this slightly modified concept. The "shines" usually stands for the feminine-motherly side, the "speaks", more often for the masculine-fatherly side. More details will follow later on.
But, let's go back to physics for a moment. There seems to be no doubt, that it is either in or within the elementary unit "shines". But, does it also "speak" there? But, of course! It was just above, that I used the example of the electrons, which are measurable in two different places at the same time in so-called "tunneling" experiments. Such can no longer be explained and described with simple material, geometrical lines ("shines"). Such requires a completely new dimension. It is as if someone were fiddling around with it. A subject, no longer an object. The same applies in astronomy. The further we look into space, the more we don't see what is actually and truly there, but something, that has been changed by gravitation (for example, gravitational lines) and other phenomena (dark matter and energy). Changed in such a way, that we more or less see things to which we can attribute any kind of description.
Such argumentation is applicable in biology, geology, informatics, yes, even in mathematics. Till today there is still no actually empirical theory for the first integers. And, there will never be one. All imaginable attempts, for example: to reduce our number system to a comprehensible order by applying an order of prime numbers, has failed. We can count, but this is a synthetic model, which fails at the decisive moment. "I have three brothers, Peter, Paul, and myself", once said by a boy, and he was right. Because he counted himself as a subject first and then there was the brother term. So, there were three. Shackleton, the famous discoverer of the Antarctic (expedition endurance), is quoted upon his return from his extremely exhausting tour as having appallingly said: "who is the fourth man?" But, there were only three of them, he himself was one of the tour participants, who had been at the brink of death by exhaustion. But then, he also existed as one of the planners, one of the responsibles, as a super- participant, whom he had constantly monitored during the trip. One of these, was suddenly no longer there. Of course, all of them were saved.
This does not concern phantasms, this exactly pertains to basic mathematics of the real and true human individual, and not of comparable consumer products with which counting at all originally began - counting as such, on a plain, on a field, where it really "counts". "Certain relations are already determined even before actual human relationships arise... Even before any experience, before any individual deduction of and before any collective experience,... there is something that organizes this area and which inscribes the first lines of power into it... the function of primary classification. It is important for us to recognize this first level here, the one at which things already count, at which counting is done - even before the formation of a subject, who thinks. It is important, that something is counting within all this accounting" (Lacan, J., Die vier Grundbegriffe der Psychoanalyse, Walter (1980), page 26).
Where It Counts, where He/She Counts, is where the science of the subject begins. The cipher ENS-CIS-NOM contains values awarded to letters. It makes a difference, whether one begins reading with letter one or four. Or, with seven or with eight. You could immediately build a mathematical system around it. However, it is just that, which we are not going to do here. The reason is that anyone exercising this formula word should find his or her own mathematics. Such mathematics, nevertheless, need be exactly defined, as there are only six or seven meanings contained in the formula word, which are equal for all. This means, that we are at the verge of the It Counts. This is where all six or seven meanings are still not clear enough to produce a solution in a sequential accountability of meanings. So, the solution can only be found by each individual and for himself, even though he can naturally establish valid mathematics for many. After all, you can also choose other formula words. Let's say for instance, five in all (this is based on purely empirical facts, which show that practical exercises with about five such formula words brings about the most fruits). Comparing the arithmetics contained within could possibly produce aspects of mathematical interest. I haven't tried this myself, but others could try to do so. I'll be commenting on the mathematics in a separate article. At this point, it is important for me to state, that it is the subject from which It Counts starts (he/she counts, as in psychoanalytics).
This leads me to the difference, which separates the science of E-N-S-C-I-S-N-O-M (I feel free to choose this description here) from classic psychoanalytics. While the psychoanalyst and his patient summarize in traditional analysis, and then calculate ("work through", as it is described there), the science of E-N-S-C-I-S-N-O-M allocates everything, and the formula word is suspended between the "shines" and the "speaks" as an elementary experience -- psychoanalytically: primary process (this is explained in more detail in the brochure 'Die körperlich kranke Seele'). Forthwith, there is no need for the physical presence of an analyst. The analyst comes in effect in the background of experiences which the trainee makes. Many analysts regard this to be quite strange.
However, it is a fact that the matter is very well understandable in terms of mathematical, and of course, in terms of linguistics. Even mathematics requires denotation from the start, the determinate, an axiom, or an algorithm -- all of them being significants. The algorithm of ENS-CIS-NOM is even much more compact and elementary than those often found in mathematics. This is due to it being an "acoustic image", a "linguistic crystal" from the beginning on- all of these being names which were introduced by J. Lacan in order to have a highly precise, highly tangible and compact description of the subconscious. How much more algorithmic can it be expressed? Imagery (chrystalline) and simultaneous acoustics (linguistic) become especially pointed in the circulation of ENSCISNOM. Now it needs only be internalized and all is done. At this point, allow me to refer once again to the above mentioned brochure, in which practice and theory are explained in detail.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
