Archive - Psychoanalytic Practitioner

On the Transliteration of the Psychoanalyst.

Leave a reply

The being is not an emblematic tautology whispering that the being is being: that it is antecedented by the sophist or the polemicist whose most private member has been replaced by a pansophy, not much of a different organ, when, still, the object of copulation is the woman to be reduced to a rib taken from a man∙ the being is a cause, when the Das Ding be-comes a Das Being, a command of desire to Be a cause, be-cause the signifier is repressed but not the Letter: this is the enumerating prayer that is not numeric and not a Noumenon by which one knows how to use the Real.

 

Not, not the Act of speaking, neither that of the subject of speech, of the ὑποκείμενον– but from, not of, the Act who Speaks: that is not the speaking being of the been speaking, but the ErgOn whose vitality is not ornamentalised by the forename of the acting out founded on the What cannot be said nor upon that which has not been received or interpreted from the Other, but of an Acting because It is said: and, if an uninhabited dictionary entry would have been able to verbalize, or, at least to stutter its demand for a genesis of that godforsaken destitute received by the object, that would have been the definition of Saint Christopher the Dog whose being is without a theory of forms, an άσχημος, without a shape, as the intonation of the object ά moves beyond but not apart the schema, from the Entelechy to Entelexia, which marks the revelations of the Letter and the Ascesis of the psychoanalyst sourcing the transliteration of his desire∙ it is a mere flash of humor to take a huff from the Other of the Rosetta Stone and the transliteration of the hieroglyphs of a system, which is a metasis and not desire, since the letter scripting the afar of the ethics of a system’s coordination cannot assist the metousiosis of the Ascesis, one practiced with the analyst’s being, a Μεταγραφή of the proper orientation not of the treatment but of the analyst and fervently not in terms of transcription that is the way of the scribe, a servant of capitalism’s Ousia, who asserts that the ear of interpretation is dead whilst it is more alive than ever and simply he cannot interpret, implied one has the capacity of bathing within the expansion  of the Apeiron, the Real of the letter and not of the signifier and of the structure, and without a second thought, of the semiotic analytic position, a death drive of no motion and a daughter of an alphabet which is of Lepsius, not towards meaning and application from one to another, be that of signifiers or of meaning, but due to its use of diacritic marks: failed, would be those who attempt to read and not dance, upon letters who are not notes and thus they are breaths, macrons of vowels indicating the way of desire and speech, eventualising the subject for the Act- that of life.

 

And, from the cause, derives the exigentia, not the agency but the urgency’s writing on the flesh gambling on this exigency whose ink escapes repression: the signifier is repressed but not the letter, for, it breathes encapsulating the availability of a destiny, not that of an epitaph to whose chair the psychoanalyst sits comfortably like a caliph, but one whose testicular organs have been removed just to identify with a philosopher autocrat not allowing himself to be written, never irrigating the introspective that the unconscious is timeless but not space-less, because desire, within that which is an unadulterated creation yet not a parthenogenesis, is not a hamlet nor a locus, as much as that is designated by the signifier, but a direction into the abysmal and unmethodical Aether, of the substance interweaving with the registers∙ the Aether is that which is not a number: not the agency but the Exigency of the Letter, emanating not in space and not on a body’s periphery, whose pursue is to be articulated within a material that in inhuman- and how difficult is it to bear the gymnastics of a discourse that clamors for the risorgimento of interpretation, which cannot be dead because the analyst’s voice is not taken into account, since it reduces the interventions to a “What shall happen now∙” it is not what, a So what, “What will happen now”- but a “What are you going to do”∙ for, the Aether is not the Other while the macros intervene upon those Diphthongs with a cut∙ that would have been more wise for the philosopher who cannot produce an Act for the reason that he states that there are only two Acts in psychoanalysis, what a simpleton, to name it a Laceration– the letter does not appear when the signifier is cut, but another signifier∙ and yet, because Lernaean Hydra’s head is reproduced and expands when Herculean hands axe one head, we ought to laugh with the disciple of truth, who would have known that what is been cut needs to be cauterized: that is a definite stain upon a body, ligatures that life’s discourse itself seethes on what it could have been a formation not based on Nomina Sacra, as these sacred names are letters not bent through the desire of the Subject: and those do need an Act to condense the vinculum’s sexual attraction upon the letter and meaning.

 

The Ethic, which is a Breath, not that poisonous commencing from Hydra’s mouth as the myth has it, does not require a Father but a drive to be driven by the source and not its object- not in a lunate proposal where the letter would be a mere representation of a signifier but through the kinesis of what the σίγμα within the scheme of a proper name’s fermentation agents is testifying at the crossroad of Arete and Kakia, where the signifier becomes a sacred letter and the subject identifies with the grammar of the master, not its discourse: both embodiments are women and the letter is beyond the Woman, for, it is not a dedication∙ and, when this latter identification occurs, there is no bar or vinculum, but the tilde who aims, not a ‘that’ aims, at the new apocatastatic use, though to deal with the same Ousia that has been ex-communicated to the function of cacophonising desire∙ for, the psychoanalyst is called to read not, not the acting out, but the circumflex in the foreshadowing of the mathematical con-text’s alleviation reducing the Letter into a number, thus transforming its utility, and, hence, resulting to what Julian the Apostate’s chirography has probed by vilipending the divination of Λόγος from the carcass, to “Recite a prayer to a corpse”∙ a transmission from the animal to the animal, and not to the human, an illness of the breath in Proteus’ motion: that is why it is said that interpretation is dead, because of the name day of that corpse who cannot interpret by transliterating the Letter to desire: Abecedarium Stasis.

Free Association: On a Function to be Revised.

Leave a reply

Free associate your Breath, dear analyst, because, from the everything, that Apeiron, comes the pneuma  but not through the Other’s free concurrence – how much does an aristocrat enjoy listening to what he already knows yet behaving as if not acknowledging· for, he cannot listen if the, which it is, the breath, the object a, and the Letter are homoousian to the Das Ding, separated but not divided, not, not with the cut that enables signifiers to appear but with the ditinic comma, which is the spiritus asper of the Act, not the action, of breathing· the Dasia, or, the tones of Pythagoras, whom masters of psychoanalysis in their divine struggle with time and the unconscious speak of musicality- how can the ear of he who has no faith and has never conducted a poem in favor of the muses can have a word about music, he that cannot speak a word deriving from his own poetry· and, to these unfaithful who research knowledge, belief and faith, that is, to those who have never experienced the vomiting breath of a fricative consonant, neither the kindness of the Spiritus Lenis, that horizontal breathing which the Greeks have submitted as high spirit, the Ψιλόν Πνεύμα, marking the nonattendance of the right to be heard, not to be or respire because the letter’s flux has been eternalized by the signifier: it is this function upon the breathing letters, the subtraction of the signifier’s oxygen, wrongfully taken for litter as the hypokeimenon, the subject of the unconscious, cannot subsist without the Ousia.

 

 

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

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

On the Faith of Psychoanalysts: a Cause of Desire, which is a Cause.

Leave a reply

The signifier is acrostic to the Letter’s Ousia- not homoousian: it is the Summa Theologica of the Epistula Purloined: and it can be that, because the Act is autonomous, as much as the master signifiers designating the trauma and its destiny, wreathing, and not breathing, with all the musicality of its arias ∙ that faith is indeed the praxis of the subject, an Alien Act to the binary of idolatry of the One and or the Other, not of the Agalma– certainly not that of Pygmalion, whose The Woman has been exteriorized through, and by, a marble stature, a procedure in opposition to that of Orpheus’ and Lot’s faith, with the subsequent man having his name signifying the veil in Hebrew, a veil he did not use because he subtracted his own faith ∙ idolographical, that is a much better of a word for an epistolary poet who has not yet written, not yet, for, the principle is that of desire, a motion in itself and not bound in the ethics of philosophy as it is that which binds an ethic. And, if the Πίστις of the Greeks, with a small object cause of desire in its front, just a small letter α, so to turn the word α-πίστις, and terracing faith to the object cause, which is a cause, the analytic cause, in other words, that is an ethic in its own fundamental nature, then the trust and faith of the analyst is to have a good laugh with the still scientific melancholia of Russell, who, as a true fanatical obsessive seeking to erase any demand alluding to a desire, he commands the subject to bring to an end the process of a delicate science, by saying that, When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith: but dear Bertrand, it is those evidence that aggravate a spirit to request faith.

 

 

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

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

On the Reading that is Symphonic.

1 Reply

The Act is the antiphony of jouissance- the phoneme ought to be sang and spelled out∙ a school and an orientation could have create a chorus, at least regarding the direction of a desire, and to the best of our stupidity we could have made some use of the Liturgia Horarum, for, if there is anything to be venerated, that is not the semblance but that desire for the Cause, not its causality, but that which becomes a breath from the puncture, for, the fissure from where desire shall sprang its motion is for no use but for Kinesis and for the Letter, not a waste of a litter certainly but an abysmal aether, offering the trauma’s sacred pinches and tones to the analyst’s desire∙ it is in this asymmetrical manner that the signifier detects and recognizes the analysts, not the other way around, and within this creation, not an existence, analysts are desired to learn a novel alphabet: each time de novo, for, and because every analysand is different, an analyst is dissimilar, as well, to its own shadow.

 

 

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

By Petros Patounas.

The School of the Freudian Letter Publications.

The Duty of Psychoanalysis.

Leave a reply

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.

Leave a reply

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.

Leave a reply

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.

Leave a reply

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.

Leave a reply

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.

Leave a reply

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.