Back to Table of Contents
Jamie Spilka (2008) questions what Rosas de Salas proposes regarding the “non represented”, as forms of inscription and ‘removal’ that are different from repression. He wonders whether such a proposal could be a methodological error because of its simple linear chronology of psychic times. Instead, Spilka proposes the circular time of the après-coup , stating, “rather, they are different forms of processing the presentation itself, a complex issue which, as such, already implies a complicated passage through symbolic castration, with all the delicate discrimination between Sachvorstellung , Wortvorstellung and Dingvorstellung , (fact presentation, word presentation and thing presentation) and the interdiction of the jouissance in the real introduced by the mythic paternal prophecy ‘this is your mother’”. Spilka’s specific rendition of Lacanian approach inaugurates “the field of unconscious signification” bound to a subjective ‘denaturalization’ rather than any natural empirical signification. Thus, all significations would monotonously imply the same, an interdiction of the jouissance with the real, and it is in that denaturalizing restriction that perhaps every operation of passage of the instinct to the category of drive would be displayed.” For Spilka, “it would be difficult to put forward a psychoanalytic semiology where the problems of the unconscious presentation and the psychic signification in general, could be understood outside the field of the ethical structure of the Oedipus…which generates a succession of retroactivities from a secondary repression to a primary repression…” (Spilka 2008, pp. 163-167). For Rosas de Salas , on the other hand, “In the Freudian works support can be found depending on whether you take what is previous to “Beyond the pleasure principle”, which describes a repetition that does not contradict the pleasure principle, or after 1920, where Freud suggests even the repetition of events that were never pleasurable but seek binding. This change of the pleasure principle for the binding and the combinatory binding via the repetition is undoubtedly rich in consequences and is one of the reasons why we choose this perspective to consider the drive and its overflows” (2008, pp. 143-144, emphasis added). For Spilka ,”the death drive and the ‘beyond the pleasure principle’ imply in Freud a leap into the understanding that the human conflict cannot be understood in terms of an animal rationality revolving around the aim of survival… Freud reduces the importance of the unbinding–binding – which he did appreciate in play and traumatic neuroses – and instead, he refers to the specificity of a repetition beyond the pleasure principle in connection with the return of the drives that never had the chance of realization and which, for this reason, have no possible trace of satisfaction” (2008, pp.163-167, emphasis added) VI. B. FURTHER REVISIONS AND REFORMULATIONS IN ARGENTINIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS Historically, revision and reformulation of the psychoanalytic hypothesis of the death drive were undertaken by Terencio Gioia (1977), with related commentaries by Ángel Garma, Carlos A. Paz, Willy Baranger and Benzion Winograd (1977).
185
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online