O forçamento por onde o psicanalista pode fazer ressoar outra coisa

Abstract

The proposal of this paper is to articulate the consequences of the advances elaborated by Lacan in his later teaching, for the psychoanalytic experience. If the correspondence between language and the real is from the order of the impossible, if the integral transmission seems impossible, the crucial question is: What is the psychoanalyst’s ethical response when the destiny of the message becomes the ab-sens  of the human sexual intercourse, which is not natural, but “taken by the words”? This is the clinical question and essential ethics: psychoanalysis does not seek so much the truth behind what it means, but the fact should “reveal itself” beforehand. For beyond the sense, the psychoanalyst echoes something else – claims Lacan in 1977. For this, it is necessary what he calls “forcing”, which refers to the analytical act as response, without which psychoanalysis can limp irreducibly to an “autism of two” (Lacan, 1977). Thus, it is necessary to blur the difference between truth and fiction since “what the patient says, expecting confirmation, is not the truth, but the variety of the symptom”. But, attention: this lack of pretension of the truth does not at all justify a relativism of deconstruction, since the all the “lying truths” point to the real that jouissance  is the castration. Here is the clinic and ethical boldness Psychoanalysis offers: the bet on the well saying as the psychoanalyst’s response facing the impossible of saying everything that is expected from a clinic that includes pass. There where there is not the Other to answer, neither a subject that corresponds. There where there is not a postman of the truth there is, however, something that the letter carries: the sound value of the poetic function, which touches the real far beyond the semantic value of the truth – and that it makes it echo in the body (encore ). Those are the questions I intend to deal with in this paper.