Originary Mimesis

March 25, 2005

From a Lacan-list for those who are interested!

Scully wrote:

Indeed, if alienation, in the Lacanian sense, is effective at the

level of primary narcissism, then seperation is not simply

something like a mask, role, or mirror image that one can take

on on and off, for primary narcissism has an investment of the

libido that glues the semblant down (Lacan speaks of the

Hommelette as what suffocates the subject). Therefore, what is

needed for a progress here is a practice of something that is

more primary than the distance with one's image: a practice and

theory of an originary mimesis, which remained unanalyzable to

Freud at the level of neurosis, for it opened up the question of

psychosis and the nomination of: " I am who I am " . To be able to

traverse this originary mimesis, in Lacanian analytic terms,

requires a practice of seperation which is not merely a mirror or

a dialogue with others or a talking cure, but what effectively

occurs in the subjects relation to a 'screen' or surface (not

mirror). For to attempt to simply identify with one's symptom and

use it as one would reflect on a mirror " is short and does not go

very far " : to spell it out, such a pirrouet remains at the level of

secondary narcissim and the symptom.

Hi Scully and others,

My two cents to a fascinating discussion!

Could it be put that way?

1) sinthome [separation]- primary narcissism - screen

s) symptom [alienation]- secondary narcissism - mirror

I agree with your exposition despite the fact that I am not

completely sure about what you mean with originary mimesis. Is it

something prior to language, prior to the speakerbeing? The

originary mimesis' nomination would, in my opinion, constitute a

pure, unuttered " I am " [primary mimesis] and not the biblical, old-

testamentary, " I am who I am " , which, in fact, opens up the question

of psychosis.

Is it possible to traverse? I would like to know about what practice

of separation you are talking? I agree with the Lacanian " is short

and goes not very far " in reference to the identification with the

symptom; a change of conditioning, a pirouette. The practice of

separation you, I suppose, are pointing to, could be actually

characterized as the " never ending end-point of psychoanalysis " .

That's where the analyst is pointing to all the time, for him self

and for the analysand, consciously or unconsciously. A walk on the

thin edge between constant separation and psychosis; no

identification takes place, no alienation, no separation in what

ever manner nor in some other sort of narcissistic economy. We would

have the perfect actor. Acting as it is required moment to moment,

simultaneously, in and outside of the Discourse of the Other and

completely disassociated from desire and expectations. A dead man

walking. A Robot. A psychotic. A mystic. God.

I guess it isn't possible to traverse originary mimesis but it is

possible and it should be pointed to it. Originary mimesis or the

separation from life ( " being " or mere " am " ) as a supposed continuum

with the emergence of " I am " is basically coupled to biological,

basic consciousness itself. The drive to live as expression of the

DNA. I am not trying to provoke oceanic feelings nor any kind

of " cosmic " narcissism but I guess it is here where psychoanalysis

borders its limits i.e. the pre-verbal, the pre-conceptual, the

supposed, assumed immensely fine niche between the organic and

inorganic or inert. The nucleotide-pairs of a symphony. At the end I

am who I am is the only thing that could be said with certainty, I

am remains unuttered.

Cordially,

Kip Almazy

March 25, 2005

In a message dated 3/25/05 12:25:43 AM, kipalmazy writes:

> (Lacan speaks of the

> Hommelette as what suffocates the subject)

>

P: I read of a man who was suffocated by a piece of omellette.

Maybe Lacan read about that too. )

March 25, 2005

-

kipalmazy

Nisargadatta

Friday, March 25, 2005 3:23 AM