I will not forget that, on the metro this Saturday morning, November 5 at 8 a.m., I told myself that this time I was going to the Palais des Congrès, that this time it would happen, that this time all this work, these articles, these meetings, these interviews, all this light brought, would not have been in vain.
I won’t forget that it was already a year ago.
I will not forget a striking formula from the distributed program: “Psychoanalysts are the ophthalmologists of the gaze”, and I will bring it out to my doctor the next time I change my glasses to explain to him the schism according to Lacan: “Doctor, you study how we see, I study how we are looked at”.
I will not forget Philippe de Georges
commentary on the famous Freudian dream One is asked to close one’s eyes where the gaze is the presence of the Other who judges. Is it a question of closing one’s eyes to the fault of the grieving son or the dead father? If Freud will shed light on the Oedipal fault with regard to the father, he will turn a blind eye more to the fault of the father to put him back on his pedestal as father of the Horde.
In this regard, I will not forget that Serge Toubiana, in his book Les fantômes du souvenir, was able to say in a touching (and touching…) way how his father, despite his ocular precision, had not been able to see that his son was following in his footsteps by repairing, like him, objects that no longer worked. A father who nevertheless took him very (too?) young to see Fellini’s La Strada for an experience that later became destiny: “If they had taken me to see Bambi , my life would have been completely different.”
Gérard Wajcman, whose dialogue with him outlined a fascinating quarrel between ancients and moderns about absolute visibility in the 21st century, concluded: “Cinema is for everyone an experience with closed eyes.”
This recurrence gives in my opinion
another perspective for thinking about the consequences of this sentence from Lacan: “The first said decrees, legislates, aphorizes, is an oracle, it confers on the other its obscure authority” [1] .
There is therefore, beyond the Freudian articulation to the function of the voice, an acquaintance to be defined of the superego with the gaze, as Marie-Hélène Brousse said. Let us recall that Lacan noted the two objects that made Kant admire: the starry sky above our heads and the voice of the law within.
I will not forget that the AEs touched me with their simplicity, the ever-increasing evidence of a speech which makes their testimonies a rare moment and which shows the way with regard to this particular difficulty noted by Lacan of tearing the (obsessive) subject from the grip of the gaze .
