The Duty of Psychoanalysis.

A duty is not a dept· the duty of psychoanalysis is its commitment to the ethic responsible for providing the practise itself a space within the discourses of civilization- it is the duty towards the symptom’s bronchophony in the direction of that serpentine desire pushing for recognition∙ there cannot be psychoanalysis without civilization, and there cannot be a civilisation without psychoanalysis: more than anything, the analyst is Kinesis, and he precipitates, outside of time, those interventions upon the Letter so that free speech is lawfully recognized: a speech that is perpendicular- nothing more. That motion, not the subject in progress, or in process, is not locked within sessions, neither within the repetitive sounds captured by a wall’s ear- as they say- or behind soundproof doors where one’s hieroglyphic echo is not only not becoming epigraphic, but, it is swallowed by the catatonia of the analyst’s own desire· when analysts speak their voices ought to crumble the walls of Jericho, of that Ιερός Ήχος of the unconscious that is structured like a language but is heard like a Letter: we ought to be at least responsible to carry the burden of our own speech, and raise a voice- not too much of a silence: to raise a voice towards those teeth accountable for producing almighty discourses leading to cloning, that is, those phonemes crashing subjectivity within the cultural discourses denying the subjects’ right to create their own place and their own alphabet- that place that is in-formation: Freud’s staying in Austria until the outmost moment has something to teach regarding this heroic stance, an Act not worthy of an Actor but of an Activist· it is not a support or a submission to the death drive but to life.

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

On the Anonymity of Psychoanalysis.

The object that acts: you ought to jaw a few letters alleging that the duty for that motion belongs to your desire, even though, God forbid, such a desire is trapped between a xiphoid view of the Other and a master interpreter suffering from otitis: you ought to say, that the duty reliable of that desire guides you, the analyst, to be directed in the treatment and not to direct: you ought to declare, because of that desire, that the Act is anonymous, and the more anonymous it is, the more feminine is transmogrified, and that, there are not only two acts as a technician of psychoanalysis will conclude∙ there is at least another one- besides the act of the analyst and the analysand: there is, intend this plural as an “is,” the Acts of psychoanalysis itself∙ and those are not alone.

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

The Organon of Desire: neither a Phallus nor a Penis.

The eunuch does not put perpendicular a penis and, without fail, not a phallus- this is to opine, if meaning and the symbolization of an apologue could be the intergradient of a sustenance, which is not at the end, when it comes about to interpret a dream, that the devout follower of a queen, who, when exposed to femininity, does not obtain any anxiety, or so ever, regarding the symbolic castration∙ he, that he without the phallus, does retrospect the donation of the tongues, so much as to speak to a woman’s body· the instrumentality  of the transference is not that of the subject suppose to know- that is not enough for faith- one does need the miracle of speaking many tongues, in fact many letters, not confusion equal to Babelism to whom the gentiles would refer as bar-bar-ism, and had the authority to recite the letter of the signifier’s bar, but, the Apeiron of that great discourse that a woman’s drive is not able to grasp, because of the continuum expressed though the Other and becomes the acrolectal optic disabling the analyst to learn a new correspondence- this is not, honestly, enough to explain the drive’s anaplasia. The distinction between psychoanalyst and psychoanalysand is abolished by the Act- Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux– that is a Act, when one’s word is an act by itself· a parallel to the shield of Achilles’ depiction, if we request to speak about that feminine drive, that which can only be a death spirit equal to the Keres, for, it is an excess of itself resisting the psychostasia of the structure determined by the signifiers and the optical field of the gaze.

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

The Real is not the impossible- the Real is the Ethic.

What is impossible to bear is the Ethic of desire, too much of an oral object for a technician’s stomach∙ the misrepresentation of formalization, one limited to a small area by the gonioscopy of mastery, has been proved possible, as the ethic of desire is impossible because analysts  squander their tongue’s propositions in uttering a premise for its sake and not its essence, talking about after all a curing science: there are diminutive amounts of orientating new analysts but too much cure, and analysts have become the extraordinary coincidence of a circus’ arena within associations or schools∙ that failure, certainly, does not cease to not write itself, and baring that Real does not desiderate a body but an ethical motion, not a position, for one’s desire. Simply that∙ for whom, then, is the real impossible to bear, if not for the analysts or a given school, for as long as analysts converse of the sessions within the structure of a formalization, not being able to learn anew an alphabet speaking for themselves, then, surely the letter does not have its baring and possesses the gloomy ambiance of a ceiling, forbidden to escape, lynching above desire like the sword of Damocles∙ and, since there are, even to this year, questions of the symptom’s measurement and separation, as been clinical or not, we could pull our eyelids and sponge down our hands before saying that it is the analyst who is clinical or not, when he is uncoordinated from the culture and sheltered into the fantasy of psychiatry’s throne: bearing a desire does not require one’s body- it is braying that depends upon a body: and that is the zetetic.

 

And, about the presentation of cases by those deacons of misery specialized in the thanatosis of the wish, let us simply say that analysts ought to necessitate in discovering how to enlighten stories not from paper, not too dreary for the ears and optimistically to tease enough one’s enthusiasm- stories that are not theirs, but it is such a difficult task when one trades the ethics of the cause: and if there is a further utterance, a feeble one tyrannizing this generation’s minds and makes psychoanalysis an amount of sordid hors d’oeuvre, this is the structure of the impossible to bear and the impossible of the practice of psychoanalysis: psychoanalysis, my dear friend, is not practiced but lived- for when at that point where a subject diagnoses its desire is not only for utilizing it only within the sessions as if it is some breed of an abracadabra∙ and if we are in love with using the word clinic, with or without the ostentatious vocabulary commendable of a baroque epoch, and exonerations that we do not fundamentally trust, then, the clinic is that of the letter and desire, and, for that we ought to know at least a word to say about: about the Ethic repressed. An experimentation praiseworthy of a commendable amusement would be to illegitimate analysts’ reading from papers with reference to their experiences in the sessions, but, instead, let them perorate and free associate- and the thaumaturgic statement of the impossible to say will glare itself in front of the spectators’ Achilles heel, to allow that free association: it is impossible to say because analysts cannot Act, stuttering their desire, for, that which cannot be said is an Act∙ one ought to think, however, what is not allowing them to speak- and that, according to Freud, is for the love of the parent.

 

Silence in this case is not the speech of the Act, the doing of desire- speech here is the trauma: what is unfeasible to bear and said is desire, which is not lazy∙ and, if there is an impossibility in psychoanalysis, this is nothing else than the forgotten desire by a school, an orientation and analysts themselves∙ let us produce convinced low-tuned whispering reverberations, like old men, about case presentations and catechize by testing the waters, what can we take notice of from the apostles and the infamous Acta Apostolorum, stated under oath in a confident manner, which is a good pass and a testimony: when one’s being is dedicated to desire. And, a thunderous signifying chain, whose signifieds emphasize meaning through questions, about the subject whom the orientation could describe as been under the anathema of the impossible to say, impracticable to speak, that is the assemblage of analysts in a congress, who, not been daring enough to heave their voices they prefer reading from a piece of paper- what a somniferous attitude towards the Cause, too many bores opiate desire- those, those who are not able to speak, those who are bounded with an eternal commemorative moment of silence, and who are not the same from the impossible to say of the analysand: and many, misologysts of desire, under the vow of a true silence, because of the fear of losing the love of the Other, ought to think that at least monks’ silence is accompanied by a practice and an Act, much different, yet again, form this class of an Omertà.

 

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch– this is what symphonizes psychoanalysis as been a pseudoscience: when the analysts’ speech is not oriented by desire∙ it would be an invocation accompanied by a flight of the imagination, if those misologysts have been at least a bit Laconian and less Lacanian, to talk little but precisely. There is also something else to echo one’s thoughts on, to become skilled at the exchange of phonemes, and make our pitiful common sense to amend the questions orienting the practise- that, Spartan students were biting their thumps to castigate themselves because they rambled too much their responses∙ the trauma of lalangue is present in analysts’ inability to speak without preparation in front of an audience- they are not responsible for their words and that is the Sinthome of a bad approach to speech itself: it is unquestionably clinical my dear friend. Get them to speak, to free associate without quotes or texts and see if they can bear the responsibility of their word- then, truly, then the impossibility of the Real, the ethics of desire, will be vivid, too vivid to engross in the symbolic.

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

On the Desire of the Gentile.

If psychoanalysis’ Ousia residues in the interior and the con-text of the session, is not an Act but an old fashioned Pavlovian usance of a different time scale, longer indeed, awaiting the subject’s analyst to be satisfied with how this given analysand deals with his Daimonion, the Other, a function that analysts have revolved- just hear them chatting about it- into an imperceptible other person, reducing its function into an embarrassed cognition supposedly not implied to the analysand: but the voice who is unvoiced it is even more horrible· an unpardonable glimpse and an appraisal without the support of any optical devises, into a number of case studies, depicts the truth, that is, very few analysts canister to speak their own language, remaining thus attentive and attached to a Name of the Father, practicing a psychotherapy, one not been able however to treat their individual symptom, which is cloning: there is no dupe but duple, and, Pavlov, and certainly the supposedly free enterprise oxygenating demands for professionalism, would have been proud of such an exegesis· a professional process not at all human, not even analysis, but the hopeless fetish of he who is parsimonious, if we add desire and ethics into this orgy of professionalism: a franchise within capitalism· as one could smell the phallic redolence of a disintegrating question, which is inhuman as much as it is human, analysis being and present to civilization, to the civilization hosting its free ethical practice allowing subjects to be in formation and not subjected to any theory of forms, is psychoanalysis own Act onto the excess of the discourses asphyxiating the desire of that civilization’s subjects- in this manner the in-formation differs from the semblance’s information leading to cloning and not at all to the creation of a new alphabet, through which analysts cannot plagiarize the responsibility of learning each time anew- and this is the same reason that an analyst is not a position but a Kinesis: yet, he who is obese and refuses to be fed by desire, certainly, cannot move and prefers the position- that of been a cleric of the Other.

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

On the Diaeresis of the Letter and Desire.

The Psychoanalyst analyses the analysand· what a folly for our orientation, and a good reason for one’s underarms to be in the service of transudation: it is the analysand who perlustrates the analyst- that is how desire occupies a body that is not victim to the diaphoresis of the master and is able to breathe in and out an incantation, for, the plus one does not generate a law but, himself, is generated by that desire performing instead of a law· otherwise, how to speak of that which cannot be said, because it is not written, if not by sculpting the stage-whisperer’s idea, without rhyme or reason, murmuring that which cannot be said is an Act?

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

 

 

On the Desire that is Agape and not Science.

The Act of God is Alien- it is demoniac, as the signifier engrosses the amateur dramatics of acting in the discourse, not a word but a true to the end operational vocation, which is not a doing: it is not the democracy of the letters, unquestionably not that∙ the analyst,  is not some genus of a ghostlike being: with a bit of fortune analysts could have stimulated their thoughts towards the filthy granules of the been aware of the nature of the subject supposed to know, which is not, not this time, the scarecrow of transference- since it unbraids the podium’s stance upon where the speaking being will interweave the outward appearance of its act∙ this is what could have make this creature called psychoanalyst an extraordinary mortal, because it Acts on its word and not biology: not a usual quality of analysts, and, there could be a peculiar something to spice those minds, with a prescribed amount of high-quality affluence and excellent omens, are not to be characterised, as Adler wrote, idiots from birth∙ and whilst the crux of the moment is at its timeless soil and the subject’s inadvertencies cough up the letter, because it perseveres, not without stubbornness, the signifier’s latitude, the Act condescends to the signifier its real value and makes audible the speaking being manifested within the course of an analysis, something of a fresh principal capital for the new mounting economy, becoming the Archangel’s ambrosial scale of what is a worth according to the given desire of the Acting Being: for, a word to have a price, a simmering somewhat of one’s own manure becoming a fertilizer, in or out a compost for he that is able to Act, the subject no longer per-verses its word by not acting∙ the code of Bushido, a good game of words for those philologists to transmit to the pre-mentioned manure, the heroic code, exists along a perverse discourse, only that the hero dedicates his being into, not to but into, an act serving a cause: that is not the act of science, but of Agape.

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

The Threshold that is not a Gate.

The Act bankruptcies the equivalence of the subject and its signifiers- it is Alien to the discourse that is a semblance∙ what class of an antechamber in the adytum is the analysand’s verdict to accept, not to enter, analysis, and to refuse the replication for the sake of a metasis of its jouissance∙ and who, again, and who, and what genus of a place is the psychoanalytic session, notwithstanding its material coordinates, if not a place where there is no door or a gate- even more to ask is how the session is embodied, as what, in a given analytic culture drowned by the discourses of capitalism and modern science, where, for the very first time, analysts are provoked by the desire that had arrived in Freud’s medulla oblongata, forcing him to glimpse curiously a few kilometres further than the localization of what is a body, and to be exemplifiers of that human arche, which is freedom, through the Act, a threshold of itself, by which psychoanalysis is indebted to civilisation, that very one conditioning the walls and gates of their atrophic practises, as much as of their inability to account for their responsibility and the ethos of an Act as, from that chair that imitates Freud and Lacan, they enjoy undertoning about wild analyses and never of responsible acts: it is true what their never thirsty lips shape- but as such speaks only a coward.

 

The structure indoctrinates the analyst∙ as much as the gospel of Mathew sought to esteem Jesus’s teaching by encompassing signifiers to the prophesies of the Old Testament, so much of the same these analysts have been converted into the temple’s scribes- knowing everything and acting too little, certainly not the few and well desired wished by Lacan in his founding Act∙ indoctrination∙ and, yet, it confines the Act as a discipline locating the body to a solid position- let aside that the Act is an end in itself∙ the profession, let us say, suffers from Atherosclerosis, by greatly provited violent doses of consumption of triglyceride and cholesterol: analysts have become obese and stringy- isolated like illnesses on quarantine, with an anaemic desire never in place and use∙ the analyst does not have any control over the Act, for, its threshold is not a space: the doing and the action are under the spells of a position, not the Act, which is an opposition of rebellion from the hands of psychoanalysis’ capitalism, against those commandments of more speed and the how, upon which a supposed scientific psychoanalytic reasoning has evolved- what the analyst is control of, when it comes to the act, is the ethos allowing in overcoming a law that is unlawful when confronted with the human, very human, desire- to that, we ought to admit that analysts are better quote-vaporisers than practitioners, for, practitioners of the nature of desire are characterised by their praxis: the voice of the analyst is the Act and not its anaesthesia, a quality equal to lazy sun-stroked donkeys.

 

What is a threshold- one that has ministered analysts as been the law of the practise, with them not been able to come across it, transversely, not because it was forbidden or marked by some sort of an extraordinary flowing heat like Pyriphlegethon, but, for the reason that the junction itself means originality and responsibility, more, even to know what one is talking about- what is it, if not the realm that is not an abode, and where the body is liquefied, and where the death drive, the myth of lamella becoming real, veiling the analysts’ somatic organs of jouissance, yet with the sense of bodily jouissance still at place but with no use, with its imprint around the organ than has been the confederate of lamella now assisting this Act∙ this is exactly the nature of a saint’s temptation, however a no-evil if not part of a religious discourse, befalling when the analyst crosses the footpath encountering a very powerful object as sweet as the acoustics of the Sirens’ song, a manacle of signifiers having no signified and dignity, though devouring motion and rhythm are moving the body: here is the threshold that is not a gate, where stands psychoanalysis’ own death drive- that what we may call excessive speech or excessive listening and it is excessive without the Act, an Act answering to the million said utterance: from where do I start Mr psychoanalyst: from the Act, my dear subject, you have already started- the question ought to be asked by your analyst: from the Act, which is not Alien to the speaking being but to the analyst∙ the Act is the deed of a creation that itself acts upon the Apeiron∙ it cannot be acatalectic.

On the Register of the Act.

The very element of the analytic Act is silence- that, a Being Silent and Eupnoea, which analysts disremember to honour their anamnesis, and whose anamorphosis alongside the act reserves the speaking being, the he-dummy who attempts to say that which cannot be said for the sake of the phallus∙ it is an ErgOn, the diacritical object of psychoanalysis and the inhabitation of the visceral beast, that animal who has the proneness, because of the phoneme, to become foolish towards biology, and from where the speaking being Acts, been no more a speaking being but an Ergon whose word is a praxis, because he has said so∙ the threshold, that which is not to be overpassed but crossed, maybe in the erudite style of the Argonauts who allowed the phallus to crush its tail, is that sanctioning or eliminating speech itself- the particular topography of the resisters remaining unexplored because, accurately, analysts do not act in the custom proper to an Acting Being∙ it is a step further than science and no close to a creed, a monarchy at the pathos of the act where the solution to the substance of how does the Subject supposed to Know deal with the humanity of the session∙ to that threshold one is to encounter the Ethic, not before crossing it.

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

On the Act that is One.

The strategy is not an Act- it even surpasses the debriefing preliminary of the treatment of psychosis; which, yes, there could have occurred an act with it simply by opening a mouth and asking that big-headed creature one sees in the mirror, a donkey not speaking but braying, if the question prior to the treatment of psychosis should have been pragmatically closer to how does the psychosis treat the analyst; not a strategy but  a symptomatic occurrence that happens unexpectedly. It is not a gamble as nothing is at stake, neither loss nor victory: Veni, Vidi, Vici was verbalised for the triumph of surpassing the river, but, again with Heraclitus, we have a testimony that, even if the subject steps in the same place, the waters cannot be the same- that is why the Act cannot represent itself for one another, and only a doing can. If the Act is cored on the stages of, either meaning or existence, it is a doing serving a reductive knowledge to which the analyst serves as a technician and not a subject within, not in, formation; and, as long as the subject of analysis is a psychoanalyst, the questions of Who Acts and From what position, will deserve the answer of pluralisation of the Who, and, the second one, from a motion, never from a so called position- which is the fissure of the pre-mentioned asinine creature- not a metaphorical one since the description was indeed for a donkey.

 

 

 

The Psychoanalytic Act: On the Formation of the No-Body.

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.