I am going to remind you quickly of Freud's seminal experience which I mentioned earlier on, since in fact that is what was partly the object of our lectures of last term, totally centred as they were on the notion that the complete reconstitution of the subject's history is the element that is essential, constitutive and structural for analytic progress.
It follows onfromthe initial development of what someone, an analyst who does not always have a way with words, but who on this occasion made a rather fortunate, even beautiful, find, has called Freud's seminal experience. The drama which, in each of the cases he gave us, ends in failure.
See John Rickman. Correspondence can be sent to: Michael Wm. For one very simple reason, on which I have already insisted - the singularity of the analytic experience, when it comes to Freud. They content themselves with hanging on to a balustrade, to a guard-rail offered by some corner or another of Freud's theoretical system.
And again, as with The Psychoses, this course begins at a slow crawl; the first forty pages or so seem to wander in all directions dry, disparate, needless directions.
We cannot obliterate the fact that it was thefirsttime that an analysis was undertaken. Unauthorised returns will not be accepted.
Without even seeking out those who cherish paradoxes - anyhow, there aren't that many of them. They possess no less of a unity for all that.
Undoubtedly this is what allows us to catch a glimpse of why Freud, in contrast to what happens in his writings, mobilised the full weight of his authority so as to assure, so he believed, the future of analysis.
He argues that we cannot understand the famous images, such the analyst-as-surgeon, or mirror, without seeing how they figure in this series of experiments.
This ego, what is it?