29/7/17

Simone Weil, Leçon de politique autre -(1) *This Title is from JAM





                                     
Extracts from On the Abolition of all Political Parties (2)
The word ‘party’ is taken here in the meaning it has in Continental Europe. In Anglo-Saxon countries, this same word designates an altogether different reality, which has its roots in English tradition and is therefore not easily transposable elsewhere. The experience of a century and a half shows this clearly enough. [1] In the Anglo-Saxon world, political parties have an element of game, of sport, which is only conceivable in an institution of aristocratic origin, whereas in institutions that were plebeian from the start, everything must always be serious. At the time of the 1789 Revolution, the very notion of ‘party’ did not enter into French political thinking – except as an evil that ought to be prevented. There was, however, a Club des Jacobins; at first it merely provided an arena for free debate. Its subsequent transformation was by no means inevitable; it was only under the double pressure of war and the guillotine that it eventually turned into a totalitarian party. Factional infighting during the Terror is best summed up by Tomsky’s memorable saying: ‘One party in power and all the others in jail.’ Thus, in Continental Europe, totalitarianism was the original sin of all political parties. Political parties were established in European public life partly as an inheritance from the Terror, and partly under the influence of British practice. The mere fact that they exist today is not in itself a sufficient reason for us to preserve them. The only legitimate reason for preserving anything is its goodness. The evils of political parties are all too evident; therefore, the problem that should be examined is this: do they contain enough good to compensate for their evils and make their preservation desirable? It would be far more relevant, however, to ask: do they do the slightest bit of good? Are they not pure, or nearly pure, evil? If they are evil, it is clear that, in fact and in practice, they can only generate further evil. This is an article of faith: ‘A good tree can never bear bad fruit, nor a rotten tree beautiful fruit.’ First, we must ascertain what is the criterion of goodness. It can only be truth and justice; and, then, the public interest. Democracy, majority rule, are not good in themselves. They are merely means towards goodness, and their effectiveness is uncertain. For instance, if, instead of Hitler, it had been the Weimar Republic that decided, through a most rigorous democratic and legal process, to put the Jews in concentration camps, and cruelly torture them to death, such measures would not have been one atom more legitimate than the present Nazi policies (and such a possibility is by no means far-fetched). Only what is just can be legitimate. In no circumstances can crime and mendacity ever be legitimate. Our republican ideal was entirely developed from a notion originally expressed by Rousseau: the notion of the ‘general will.’ However, the true meaning of this notion was lost almost from the start, because it is complex and demands a high level of attention.(…)
The true spirit of 1789 consists in thinking, not that a thing is just because such is the people’s will, but that, in certain conditions, the will of the people is more likely than any other will to conform to justice. In order to apply the notion of the general will, several conditions must first be met. Two of these are particularly important. First, at the time when the people become aware of their own intention and express it, there must not exist any form of collective passion.(…)
When a country is in the grip of a collective passion, it becomes unanimous in crime. If it becomes prey to two, or four, or five, or ten collective passions, it is divided among several criminal gangs. Divergent passions do not neutralise one another, as would be the case with a cluster of individual passions. There are too few of them, and each is too strong for any neutralisation to take place. Competition exasperates them; they clash with infernal noise, and amid such din the fragile voices of justice and truth are drowned. When a country is moved by a collective passion, the likelihood is that any individual will be closer to justice and reason than is the general will – or rather, the caricature of the general will. The second condition is that the people should express their will regarding the problems of public life – and not merely choose among various individuals; or, worse, among various irresponsible organisations (for the general will does not have the slightest connection with such choices). If, in 1789, there was to a certain degree a genuine expression of the general will – even though a system of people’s representation had been adopted, for want of ability to invent any alternative – it was only because they had something far more important than elections. All the living energies of the country – and the country was then overflowing with life – sought expression through means of the cahiers de revendications (statements of grievances). Most of those who were to become the people’s representatives first became known through their participation in this process, and they retained the warmth of the experience. They could feel that the people were listening to their words, watching to see if their aspirations would be correctly interpreted. For a while – all too briefly – these representatives truly were simple channels for the expression of public opinion. Such a thing was never to happen again. Merely to state the two conditions required for the expression of the general will shows that we have never known anything that resembles, however faintly, a democracy. We pretend that our present system is democratic, yet the people never have the chance nor the means to express their views on any problem of public life. Any issue that does not pertain to particular interests is abandoned to collective passions, which are systematically and officially inflamed.(…)
To assess political parties according to the criteria of truth, justice and the public interest, let us first identify their essential characteristics. There are three of these: 1. A political party is a machine to generate collective passions. 2. A political party is an organisation designed to exert collective pressure upon the minds of all its individual members. 3. The first objective and also the ultimate goal of any political party is its own growth, without limit. Because of these three characteristics, every party is totalitarian – potentially, and by aspiration. If one party is not actually totalitarian, it is simply because those parties that surround it are no less so. These three characteristics are factual truths – evident to anyone who has ever had anything to do with the every-day activities of political parties.(…)
The goal of a political party is something vague and unreal. If it were real, it would demand a great effort of attention, for the mind does not easily encompass the concept of the public interest. Conversely, the existence of the party is something concrete and obvious; it is perceived without any effort. Therefore, unavoidably, the party becomes in fact its own end. This then amounts to idolatry, for God alone is legitimately his own end. The transition is easily achieved. First, an axiom is set: for the party to serve effectively the concept of the public interest that justifies its existence, there is one necessary and sufficient condition: it should secure a vast amount of power. Yet, once obtained, no finite amount of power will ever be deemed sufficient. The absence of thought creates for the party a permanent state of impotence, which, in turn, is attributed to the insufficient amount of power already obtained. Should the party ever become the absolute ruler of its own country, inter-national contingencies will soon impose new limitations. Therefore the essential tendency of all political parties is towards totalitarianism, first on the national scale and then on the global scale. And it is precisely because the notion of the public interest which each party invokes is itself a fiction, an empty shell devoid of all reality, that the quest for total power becomes an absolute need. Every reality necessarily implies a limit – but what is utterly devoid of existence cannot possibly encounter any form of limitation. It is for this reason that there is a natural affinity between totalitarianism and mendacity. Many people, it is true, never contemplate the possibility of total power; the very thought of it scares them. The notion is vertiginous and it takes a sort of greatness to face it. When these people become involved with a political party, they merely wish it to grow – but to grow as a thing that knows no limit. If this year there are three more members than last year, or if the party has collected one hundred francs more, they are pleased. They wish things might endlessly continue in the same direction. In no circumstance could they ever believe that their party might have too many members, too many votes, too much money. The revolutionary temperament tends to envision a totality. The petit-bourgeois temperament prefers the cosy picture of a slow, uninterrupted and endless progress. In both cases, the material growth of the party becomes the sole criterion by which to measure the good and the bad of all things. It is exactly as if the party were a head of cattle to be fattened, and as if the universe was created for its fattening. One cannot serve both God and Mammon. If one’s criterion of goodness is not goodness itself, one loses the very notion of what is good. Once the growth of the party becomes a criterion of goodness, it follows inevitably that the party will exert a collective pressure upon people’s minds. This pressure is very real; it is openly displayed; it is professed and proclaimed. It should horrify us, but we are already too much accustomed to it. Political parties are organisations that are publicly and officially designed for the purpose of killing in all souls the sense of truth and of justice.(…)
Just imagine: if a member of the party (elected member of parliament, candidate or simple activist) were to make a public commitment, ‘Whenever I shall have to examine any political or social issue, I swear I will absolutely forget that I am the member of a certain political group; my sole concern will be to ascertain what should be done in order to best serve the public interest and justice.’ Such words would not be welcome. His comrades and even many other people would accuse him of betrayal. Even the least hostile would say, ‘Why then did he join a political party?’ – thus naively confessing that, when joining a political party, one gives up the idea of serving nothing but the public interest and justice. This man would be expelled from his party, or at least denied pre-selection; he would certainly never be elected. Furthermore, it seems inconceivable that anyone would dare to utter such words. In fact, if I am not mistaken, such a thing has never happened. If such language has ever been used, it was only by politicians who needed to govern with the support of other parties. And even then, the words had a somewhat dishonourable ring to them. Conversely, everybody feels that it is completely natural, sensible and honourable for someone to say, ‘As a conservative . . .’ or ‘As a Socialist, I do think that . . .’ Actually, this sort of speech is not limited to partisan politics; people are not ashamed to say, ‘As a Frenchman, I think that . . .’ or ‘As a Catholic, I think that . . .’ Some little girls, who declared they were committed to Gaullism as the French equivalent of Hitlerism, added: ‘Truth is relative, even in geometry.’ Indeed, this is the heart of the matter. If there were no truth, it would be right to think in such or such a way, when one happens to be in such or such a position. Just as one’s hair is black, brown, red or blond because one happened to be born that way, one may also express such or such a thought. Thought, like hair, is then the product of a physical process of elimination. If, however, one acknowledges that there is one truth, one cannot think anything but the truth. One thinks what one thinks, not because one happens to be French or Catholic or Socialist, but simply because the irresistible light of evidence forces one to think this and not that. If there is no evidence, if there is doubt, then it is evident that, given the available knowledge, the matter is uncertain. If there is a small probability on one side, it is evident that there is a small probability – and so on. In any case, inner light always affords whoever seeks it an evident answer. The content of the answer may be more or less affirmative – never mind. It is always susceptible to revision, yet no correction can be effected unless it is through an increase of inner light. If a man, member of a party, is absolutely determined to follow, in all his thinking, nothing but the inner light, to the exclusion of everything else, he cannot make known to the party such a resolution. To that extent, he is deceiving the party. He thus finds himself in a state of mendacity; the only reason why he tolerates such a situation is that he needs to join a party in order to play an effective part in public affairs. But then this need is evil, and one must put an end to it by abolishing political parties. A man who has not taken the decision to remain exclusively faithful to the inner light establishes mendacity at the very centre of his soul. For this, his punishment is inner darkness. It would be useless to attempt an escape by establishing a distinction between inner freedom and external discipline, for this would entail lying to the public, towards whom every candidate, every elected representative, has a special duty of truthfulness. If I am going to say, in the name of my party, things which I know are the opposite of truth and justice, should I first issue a warning to that effect? If I don’t, I lie. Of these three sorts of lies – lying to the party, lying to the public, lying to oneself – the first is by far the least evil. Yet if belonging to a party compels one to lie all the time, in every instance, then the very existence of political parties is absolutely and unconditionally an evil(…)
When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, ‘What is the truth?,’ Jesus did not reply. He had already answered when he said, ‘I came to bear witness to the truth.’ There is only one answer. Truth is all the thoughts that surge in the mind of a thinking creature whose unique, total, exclusive desire is for the truth. Mendacity, error (the two words are synonymous), are the thoughts of those who do not desire truth, or those who desire truth plus something else. For instance, they desire truth, but they also desire conformity with such or such received ideas. Yet how can we desire truth if we have no prior knowledge of it? This is the mystery of all mysteries. Words that express a perfection which no mind can conceive of – God, truth, justice – silently evoked with desire, but without any preconception, have the power to lift up the soul and flood it with light. It is when we desire truth with an empty soul and without attempting to guess its content that we receive the light. Therein resides the entire mechanism of attention. It is impossible to examine the frightfully complex problems of public life while attending to, on the one hand, truth, justice and the public interest, and, on the other, maintaining the attitude that is expected of members of a political movement. The human attention span is limited – it does not allow for simultaneous consideration of these two concerns. In fact, whoever would care for the one is bound to neglect the other.(…)
When a country has political parties, sooner or later it becomes impossible to intervene effectively in public affairs without joining a party and playing the game. Whoever is concerned for public affairs will wish his concern to bear fruit. Those who care about the public interest must either forget their concern and turn to other things, or submit to the grind of the parties. In the latter case, they shall experience worries that will soon supersede their original concern for the public interest. Political parties are a marvellous mechanism which, on the national scale, ensures that not a single mind can attend to the effort of perceiving, in public affairs, what is good, what is just, what is true. As a result – except for a very small number of fortuitous coincidences – nothing is decided, nothing is executed, but measures that run contrary to the public interest, to justice and to truth. If one were to entrust the organisation of public life to the devil, he could not invent a more clever device. If the present reality appears slightly less dark, it is only because political parties have not yet swallowed everything. But, in fact, is it truly less dark? Have recent events not shown that the situation is every bit as awful as I have just painted it? We must acknowledge that the mechanism of spiritual and intellectual oppression which characterises political parties was historically introduced by the Catholic Church in its fight against heresy. A convert who joins the Church, or a faithful believer who, after inner deliberation, decides to remain in the Church, perceives what is true and good in Catholic dogma. However, as he crosses the threshold, he automatically registers his implicit acceptance of countless specific articles of faith which he cannot possibly have considered – to examine them all a lifetime of study would not be sufficient, even for a person of superior intelligence and culture. How can anyone subscribe to statements the existence of which he is not even aware? By simply and unconditionally submitting to the authority which issued them! This is why Saint Thomas Aquinas wished to have his affirmations supported only by the authority of the Church, to the exclusion of any other argumentation. Nothing more is needed for those who accept this authority, he said, and no other argument will persuade those who reject it. Thus the inner light of evidence, this capacity of perception given from above to the human soul in answer to its desire for truth, is discarded or reduced to discharging menial chores, instead of guiding the spiritual destiny of human creatures. The force that impels thought is no longer the open, unconditional desire for truth, but merely a desire to conform with pre-established teachings. That the Church established by Christ could thus, to such a large extent, stifle the spirit of truth (in spite of the Inquisition, it failed to stifle it entirely – because mysticism always afforded a safe shelter) is a tragic irony. Many people remarked on it, though another tragic irony was less noticed: the stifling of the spirit by the Inquisitorial regime provoked a revolt – and this very revolt took an orientation that, in turn, fostered further stifling of the spirit. The Reformation and Renaissance humanism – twin products of this revolt – after three centuries of maturation, inspired in large part the spirit of 1789. This, after some delay, resulted in our democracy, based on the interplay of political parties, each of which is a small secular church that wields its own menace of excommunication. The influence of these parties has contaminated the entire mentality of our age. When someone joins a party, it is usually because he has perceived, in the activities and propaganda of this party, a number of things that appeared to him just and good. Still, he has probably never studied the position of the party on all the problems of public life. When joining the party, he therefore also endorses a number of positions which he does not know. In fact, he submits his thinking to the authority of the party. As, later on, little by little, he begins to learn these positions, he will accept them without further examination. This replicates exactly the situation of whoever joins the Catholic orthodoxy along the lines of Saint Thomas. If a man were to say, as he applied for his party membership card, ‘I agree with the party on this and that question; I have not yet studied its other positions and thus I entirely reserve my opinion, pending further information,’ he would probably be advised to come back at a later date. In fact – and with very few exceptions – when a man joins a party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that . . .’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think. As regards the third characteristic of political parties – that they are machines to generate collective passions – this is so spectacularly evident that it scarcely needs further demonstration. Collective passion is the only source of energy at the disposal of parties with which to make propaganda and to exert pressure upon the soul of every member.
(1) la movida Zadig No 1 

(2) Simone Weil: On the Abolition of all Political Parties, translated by Simon Leys, N.Y. Review books, 2013

ערב השיח האחרון של שנת העבודה הנוכחית בג'יאפ, שיוקדש ברובו לזדיג








חברים יקרים

הנכם מוזמנים לערב השיח האחרון של שנת העבודה הנוכחית בג'יאפ, שיוקדש ברובו לזדיג-
זדיג נמצא בהתהוות באופנים שונים במקומות שונים, גם כאן. השפה והקונטקסט הפוליטי הלוקלי, מציפות שאלות שייחודיות למקומותינו.                                                                                                 
נמשיך בדיון שכבר התחיל בערבי השיח הקודמים, בין היתר בשאלה על דרכי הפעולה  המוצעות.

יפתחו את הדיון, אבי רבניצקי, קלאודיה עידן, תמי וויל ואורית וויס.
מצורפים טקסטים  לקראת הערב.

נפגש במוצ"ש 29.7, ב 195:4
ב "נסיך הקטן" -קינג ג'ורג' 19 פינת רחוב רש"י, (חניה מומלצת בחניון הדיזינגוף סנטר)


בברכה

אנט פלד וועד הג'יאפ                                                                              


__._,_.___

28/7/17






"Heard Saturday on the resumption of JA Miller's course." By Lore Buchner. (LQ  729)

"Everything resumes/starts again, without being destroyed, to be taken to a higher level." (1) Here is how JAM 2 has invited us to join him in the long awaited resumption of his course. A breeze of fresh air circulates around the room of l'École de la Cause Freudienne (ECF) that welcomes us for this intense work day organized in three precise moments:
1. "The point of capiton", dedicated to the links between psychoanalysis and politics, leads us to reflect on the period since March 1, 2017 within the School, and onto the perspectives it points to. It is under this title that the course itself is developed, giving rise to the conversation with as starting point three expositions, previously published, written by Anaëlle Lebovits-Quenehn, Hervé Castanet and Catherine Lazarus-Matet (2).
2. "The Oracle of Lautréamont", a sequence oriented by the statement by the poet: "Poetry must be made by all. Not by one", to which JAM adds "as well as politics " (3),  invites us to study the links between poetry and politics. After an introduction by JAM on Lautréamont, we allowed ourselves to be taught this time by Guennadi Gor (a contemporary Russian poet), James Joyce, the discussion Quevedo-Góngora, and finally the Italian Leopardi. The contributions were entrusted respectively to Nathalie Georges-Lambrichs, Olivier Livtine (recent translator of Chamber Music), Miquel Bassols and Cinzia Crosali.
3. "The Edict of the Ethics Committee" takes the form of a round table in which François Ansermet brings us up to date on the controversies involved in the demand for "procreation for all", which constitutes for him a point of junction between psychoanalysis and politics. He proposes to reach out to/ make use of psychoanalysis to think the future. Its opening is continued by the interventions of Éric Laurent, Philippe La Sagna and Nouria Gründler, who exemplifies these controversies for us through a case of her practice.
The course of JAM is thus marked by the evident orientation to assume our part with respect to psychoanalysis, as Lacan did by choosing to restore the Freudian truth in the heart of his School.
Here " Year Zero " becomes the point of capiton allowing us to interpret this new period, whose starting point has been a questioning(mise en question),  at the very foundation of the analytic discourse.
The active intervention of the ECF during the last presidential elections is an unprecedented event in the history of psychoanalysis.
In this sense, JAM reminds us of the moment when Lacan decided to dissolve the Freudian School of Paris (EFP) in order for the ECF to take over. From its beginnings, the Freudian Field has played the part by (joué la partie de) Lacan.
Two signifiers are linked to what happened in the School in 2017: engagement and choice. Both are opposed to the notion that traditionally defined the analytical position: neutrality, understood as "/not choosing a side /not taking part(ne pas prendre parti ).The latter refers particularly to what Freud formulated in 1915 in his "Punctuations/ Remarks on the love of transference" and which he named 'indifference'. JAM then proceeds to situate what is at stake in engagement/commitment and what is implied, on the part of the analyst, by indifference.
On the one hand, engagement/commitment, whose source is the Heideggerian resolution to anticipate an action, and the Augenblick as the source, of the "instant of seeing." It is about what has to do with the register of choice and taste, that is, a choice rooted in the jouissance of the body, in the symptom.
On the other hand, the Freudian gleichschwebende Aufmerksamkeit, the floating attention, an attitude that consists in suspending everything equally in order to avoid focusing attention on a priori selected points (for example, on sexuality).
This equal attention of the analyst is the counterpart of the requirement that the analysand should say without choosing. The "standard" position of the analyst in the cure was  extended to his position in social space as being one who does not choose.
In Antiquity this attitude was the object of a philosophical asceticism, that of the skeptical school, which aimed to reach a point of indifference in order to free itself from the ties that attaches us to the objects of the world. The skeptical philosopher was animated by a desire for tranquility. Nothing further from what JAM proposes to us today.
It is the desire of the analyst, as formulated by Lacan, which can shed light on this tension. In his enunciation, says Lacan, the analyst makes of his being an x whose value remains unknown, for the subject to find, and JAM observes that we must understand this x as indifference in the sense of Freud. The analyst uses indifference as a means. If the analyst's desire "is not a pure desire" for Lacan, it is because the analytic position is not a skeptical position:  at the bottom, there is a choice. The analyst is not neutral; he has an ethics, which includes politics. Finally, the reference that frames this first course is found in the Écrits on page 321, which JAM develops at length.
The famous sentence, "Let him rather renounce, he who cannot join the subjectivity of his time at his/its horizon ", now finds an actualized reading. Hegel already spoke of the "spirit of time", because every epoch/time has its subjectivity, which outlines its coherence.
Should we speak of "a" subjectivity or "the" subjectivity? JAM asks us, and decides on the second formula. The subject is not the individual, it is the negative of the individual, it is empty. Subjectivity, however, is transindividual, as Lacan already stated at the beginning of his "Discourse of Rome" when speaking of the "transindividual reality of the subject." At a given epoch/time, we have the same spirit in common. We understand then that each epoch operates as a constraining limit. In this sense, JAM considers that the Lacanian sophism of the three prisoners is paradigmatic: three individuals, one subjectivity. Similarly, each one is also a prisoner of his time.
To conclude and move on to the conversation, JAM highlights that the outline of what will be the pass appears in this page, the idea that analysis is concluded with an act. Faced with urgency, with the subjectivity of his time, An implementation in act as well was made this year by the ECF.
This is why JAM does not conclude but by leaving us waiting for what will be, from now on, the pass of the subject- School. (C’est pour cela que JAM ne conclut qu’en nous laissant en attente de ce que sera désormais la passe de l’École-sujet.)
  •  
1 : Miller J.-A., « Champ freudien, Année zéro », Lacan Quotidien, nº 718, 11 juin 2017.
2 : In Lacan Quotidien you can read short versions of some of these texts. Cf. Lebovits-Quenehen A., « Aujourd’hui : depuis hier et pour demain », LQ , nº 728, 27 juin 2017 ; Lazarus-Matet C., « L’avenir d’une illusion : lecture rétrospective », LQ , nº 729, 28 juin 2017.
3 : Miller J.-A., « Champ freudien, Année zéro », Lacan Quotidien, nº 721, 15 juin 2017

Texte disponible en français sur http://www.lacanquotidien.fr/blog/w...


27/7/17

zero Abjection Democratic International Group





הנכם מוזמנים לערב השיח האחרון של שנת העבודה הנוכחית בג'יאפ, שיוקדש ל "זדיג"
(ero Abjection Democratic International GroupZ), ולסוגיות שהוא מעלה במקומותינו.
זדיג נמצא בהתהוות באופנים שונים במקומות שונים. הלוקאליות והשפה, בין היתר,מציפות שאלות שייחודיות לקהילה בארץ.
שאלות אפשריות לדיון: מהם התנאים המקדימים להרחבה זו של הפסיכואנליזה במקומותינו, איך ניתן להמשיך את השיח שהתחיל בקהילה המקומית, מה הקשיים שהיזמה מציפה ומהם דרכי הפעולה שיכולים להיווצר משיח שכזה?
נשמח שתכתבו אם עולות שאלות או הצעות נוספות למפגש,
נפגש במוצ"ש 29.7, ב 19:30
ב "נסיך הקטן" -קינג ג'ורג' 19 פינת רחוב רש"י, (חניה מומלצת בחניון הדיזינגוף סנטר)

A SEMI-COLON AFTER LA MOVIDA ZADIG-Gil CAROZ















An other discourse is in the process of supplanting the old one.
Innovation in the place of tradition. The network rather than hierarchy.
The appeal of the future outweighs the weight of the past.
The feminine takes precedence over the masculine.
Jacques-Alain Miller, Lacan’s Seminar VI, Rear Cover

It is too early to take stock. That is why we opt for a semi-colon. New networks are currently being created. These new creations are not the fruit of a preconceived program stemming from an ideology, but from a series of encounters and contingent events. The signifiers are accumulating, placed one alongside the others according to these twists and turns. It’s a swarm, an open and teeming set [ensemble] of signifiers which are proliferating, following one another, overlapping each other, replacing each other, updating. This does not prevent them from being organized in a structure which renders them very effective, except that this structure is not regulated by the law of the father. It is metonymic rather than metaphoric, horizontal rather than vertical. A logic subtends its development, that of the creation of a network as a response to a cascade of collisions with the real.
The point of departure is the testimony made by Jacques-Alain Miller around an instant of seeing a real danger in the accession to power by far right in the recent presidential elections in France. This moment was followed, in certain haste, by a time for understanding and a moment to conclude, in the form of the 23 SCALP Forums (Series of Conversations Anti-LPen) which took place in France and Belgium, including three remarkable Forums in Paris. It has also resulted in the creation of the Journal extime of Jacques-Alain Miller and the Blog, L’instant de voir which was a response to the use of social media by the National Front to “un-demonise” themselves.
It very quickly became clear that this campaign could not end with the presidential elections. On April 12th, Jacques-Alain Miller indicated the necessity of following up the campaign with “a radically decentralized, flexible and interplanar organization, capable of perpetuating and extending the unprecedented alliances which have been knotted in the context of the Forums”. Subsequently he named it the “Alpha Network” [Réseau Alpha], whose objective is to further the action of psychoanalysts without adopting the discourse of the Master. This presence of psychoanalysis in politics is not only necessary to illuminate the field which did not see the coming danger of Le Pen, but also in order to perpetuate the existence of psychoanalysis as such. Subsequently, through various direct and virtual encounters in Europe and around the world, it was equally clear that political groups of the Lacanian orientation should be created outside of France as well. Thus, the Alpha Network has become La movida Zadig (Zero Abjection Democratic International Group), a network of multiple groups which will have a purpose of giving a direction to the continuation of the campaign.
Let’s attempt to find our way within these open sets, saying all the while that this will not be exhaustive, that what is true today may not necessarily be so tomorrow, because we are in the midst of a movement of an extremely fruitful development. So here are some current points of reference:
La movida Zadig (Zero Abjection Democratic International Group) also named Zadig Nosce Tempus (ZNT). It is a world-wide Lacanian political network. All citizens and residents of the European Union are eligible to be admitted this network. Zadig currently includes:
Le réel de la vie, the French Network, destined to oppose the organizationSens commun;
Rel i Llamp, (Roots and Lightning): Catalan political group;
El Grupo Iniciador: intended to prepare the ways and means for the creation of a Spanish Lacanian political network;
Groupe Zadig - Venezuela;
- Exploratory missions were given to colleagues from other countries in order to gauge the possibility of setting up other Zadig groups in Brazil as well as in South America (NEL Countries), in Flanders and in the other European countries of the NLS.
Several instances of the Zadig have been created:
ICE 1: Instance for Editorial Coordination of the publishing houses and publications of the Freudian Field
ICE 2: Instance for European Conferences
ICE 3: Instance for Executive Coordination
ICE 4: Instance for Epistemic Coordination

Heretic: A new international journal of Lacanian politics will be published shortly, as an online supplement to Lacan Quotidien. It will publish without translations texts from numerous correspondents around the world. All the nuances of the Lacanian reference within the political sphere will be presented.
Pamphlet No. 1 of La movida Zadig: this pamphlet will contain the manifesto of the movement and will include a membership form for the movida Zadig. The form can be completed and returned to Éric Zuliani’s postal address. In addition to the creation of Le réel de la vie and of the Rel i Llamp and as well as other contributions, you will find in the pamphlet contents three texts of reference and orientation:
- “Vos paroles m’ont frappé…” [Your Words Struck Me…] by François Regnault;
- “Petite digression” by Voltaire with commentaries by Jacques-Alain Miller;
- “Note sur la suppression générale des partis politiques” [On the Abolition of Political Parties] (extracts) by Simone Weil.

In conclusion, although many members of the School and the ACF are active in La movida Zadig (for example having organized the various SCALP Forums), is not an initiative of the School. It is rather a movement created alongside the School. Its major orienting principle is the gap prised from the discourse of the Master. Membership of La movida Zadig requires no other commitment than that of not being a member of a political party (Cf. the membership form). This is to ensure that each member has the possibility of orienting themselves in terms of their own “inner light” [lumière intérieure], an expression elaborated by Simone Weil in the text of which lengthy extracts are produced in the pamphlet “La movida Zadig” No.1.

Translated by Raphael Montague

22/7/17

ערב עם הלל כהן- סוסנה הולר



המפגש היה מרתק. קצר מדי בשביל הדברים שהוא עורר והיינו רוצים לשוחח אתו. הוא מדבר, וגם כותב, מונחה על ידי האור הפנימי שלו. אינו מסתיר את הרגשותיו ואינו מצטער על כך.
הוא חשדן לגבי הידע, דבר שמענין מאוד אצל אקדמאי. אמר שהפנטזיה שאפשר לדעת היא הרסנית מאוד. לא הבהיר את הנקודה הזו אך אנחנו יכולים בהחלט להסכים אתו כשהמושג הלאקאניני ״הממשי״ נלקח בחשבון. אני מבינה את אמירתו זו כדרישה של צניעות לגבי הקונטינגנטיות ואי ההלימה של ההתרחשויות של החיים עם תבניות כלשהן.
ובכל אופן, אינו מסרב לדעת. ולכן אפשר ללמוד ממנו הרבה.
הוא משוכנע שבלי הדת אי אפשר להבין את מה שקורה בישראל, בפלסטיו. עבור הערבים אזור ירושלים וחברון הוא מקום שיש לישב אותו על מנת לשמור על המקומות הקדושים בפני פלישה מערבית: 
הדגיש שגם אם לפי האיסלם מקה ומדינה קודמות לאל אקצה בחשיבותן הדתית, יש לקחת בחשבון שבחזון הכליפות שתקום בעתיד, בירתה תהיה ירושלים.
לגבי הציונות אמר שגם אותה אי אפשר להבין ללא הדת והתבדח: הציונות אומרת ״אין אלוהים- אך הוא הבטיח לנו את הארץ״.
וגם הנצרות מעורבת, אין תנועה ציונית בלי הבריטים. שהרי על פי תפיסתם, שהשפיעה על מהלכים היסטוריים (כגון הצהרת בלפור) שיבת ציון היא תנאי לבואו השני של המשיח.
תשובתו לשאלה על אודות הלאומיות הפלסטינית והאידאלים שלה היתה שבלתי אפשרי לענות עליה.  זאת גישה מענינת ביותר לכותרת שהנחתה את  הערב. היא גם גישה שמטילה אור על כל מה שהוא אמר לאורך המפגש. פרופ׳ כהן הוא בעד הענווה. הוא תאר את ההגזמה, הטעות שבכוח ובשליטה. כאילו הציונות לא יודעת למדוד נכונה את הצלחותיה ושבויה במרוץ בלתי נלאה אחרי עוצמה.
כאן, אני חייבת להגיד, נגע פרופ׳ כהן באמת שהתגלתה לפביכואנליזה: התעתועים המכשילים של הפאליות. 
הפטה מורגנה שמדבר עליה לאקאן בפרק 21 של סמינר ״המועקה״ היא זו שמסבירה את הכשלון שבתאווה האינסופית לשליטה. 
מה שאותו הערב אמר לי הוא שאין פתרון לסכסוך בינינו לבין הפלסטינאים בלי רצון, בשני הצדדים, לקיום מדתי. מחוץ לתעתועים של המראה. דבר זה נוגע בשאלה שסקרנה את פרויד: איך יכול להיות שעם שונא עם אחר שחושב את עצמו לנבחר על ידי אלוהים? שהרי אפילו אם מאמינים באלוהים, למה להאחין למי שטוען שהוא נבחר? 
מהשאלות של הקהל הייתי רוצה להזכיר שתיים שפותחות, לדעתי, דיון שלא הספקנו לקיים אותו. שאלה של מרקו מאואס על ההשפעה של השואה, שהנה חור שחור בהיסטוריה של האנושות ושאלה של יורם הרפז שציין שבהוראתו בבית ספר בו התלמידים מוסלמים, נוכח לדעת שהאירוניה זרה למחשבה שלהם. ההבנה את הטקסטים הדתיים היא ישירה, בלי הסלסולים של הפרוש ורחוקה מאלה החיים בפוסטמודרניזם. 
על שתי הערות אלה אפשר להגיד שכדאי לנו  ללמוד איך יתנהל דיאלוג בין שיח שעונה לאדון ושיח שמתימר לחיות לא רק ללא אדון אלא גם ללא מסמני אדון.
סוסנה הולר

מספר אמירות נותרו עם הדהוד עבורי. תמי וייל






אתמול התקיים ערב ג'יאפ בו התארחנו במכון ון-ליר בירושלים.

מספר אמירות נותרו עם הדהוד עבורי.

פרופ' הלל כהן התייחס לכך שהוזמן לדבר על "הלאומיות הפלשתינית והאידאלים שלה", כרצון בלתי אפשרי.  הלל התייחס לרצון שלנו לדעת כחלק מהצורך בשליטה, רצון שמאופיין בניסיון להתאים את מה שקורה לתבניות החשיבה שלנו .

הוא הציע את המסמן "תבניות הנפש", שכיוון את מה שמסר לנו בערב זה.
הכיוון של הפוליטיקה, כך אמר, הוא מלמטה למעלה.  מהנפש אל הפוליטיקה, ולא להיפך. הפופוליזם כמענה לצורך של האדם, האמירה הפוליטית מהדהדת כאשר היא נוגעת במה שאנשים מרגישים. 

מסמן נוסף שעלה הוא "רוח של עם"
הלל תיאר את הפלשתינאים כ "קהילת יעוד".  סיבת הקיום של הפלשתינאים כאן בארץ היא להגן על המקומות הקדושים מפני הפלישה המערבית.  ממקום זה חשיבותם הרבה של אל -אקצה וירושלים.  התשובה לטענה כי אין עם כזה "פלשתינאים" היא דרך סיבת קיומו.

הלל התייחס ל "היסטוריה העמוקה" ולתחושת "העוול ההיסטורי".
הוא תיאר שיחות שניהל לאורך השנים עם פלשתינאים זקנים במחנות פליטים.  בשיחות אלה עלתה הטענה "היהודים בגדו בנו".  הזקנים התייחסו לכך שבעבר, כאשר הם היו הרוב, בכל פעם שהיהודים היו בצרה, המוסלמים עזרו להם.  אפשרו להם לחיות בקרבם ולשגשג תרבותית.  אך ברגע שהיהודים צברו כח הם החלו להפעיל שליטה על המוסלמים.

על הציונות אמר הלל, שהיא יצירה של יהודי אירופה, ולא של היהודים שחיו בקרב המוסלמים.  התמיכה של העולם בציונות, לדבריו, נבעה מהאנטישמיות וכתחליף להשמדת יהודים (למצוא להם מקום במזרח התיכון)

שתי שאלות שהלל שאל ונותרו מהדהדות עבורי:

בזהות של האדם טמונה ההנחה שהוא צודק.  האם מהמקום שלו כחוקר אפשר לוותר על הזהות ולחשוב שהצד השני צודק?

הציונות, ביחס למטרותיה הראשוניות, היא סיפור הצלחה.  האם אפשר להסתפק במה שהושג כבר מזמן?

תמי וייל

11/7/17

16.7.17, יום ראשון בערב יתמקם "מאהל זדיג" בירושלים, במכון ון–ליר



דיאלוג עם מכתבה של סוזנה הולר ,"פסיכואנליזה ופוליטיקה"


 

אני מברכת על הדיאלוג שנפתח בג'אפ  סביב הסכסוך הפלסטיני-ישראלי והשלכותיו על הקהילה המקומית, אך  מסתייגת מהתוכן  שלהמכתבה של סוזנה הלר וזאת משלוש סיבות מרכזיות:


1- הכותרת מטעה- אין בדיון דבר שנוגע לפסיכואליזה ופוליטיקה. אם כבר הכותרת הייתה צריכה להיות 'היסטוריה ופוליטיקה' או "סוציולוגיה ופוליטיקה" אבל במכתב  אין דבר הקושר אותו ל"פסיכואנליזה". אדרבה, , הכותרת מביאה ברגל גסה את הפוליטיקה אל תוך הפסיכואנליזה , מהלך שאנו בוועד מנסים למנוע מזה זמן רב ולא את הפסיכואנליזה לתוך הפוליטיקה  כמו שמילר המליץ .

2-     סוזנה מקדישה את מרבית המכתב לדבריה של  פרופ' ענת מטר, (אשר הפתיעו אותה עמוקות) , אך את ענת מטר לא הזמנו לשוחח בג'אפ, אז למה להכביר  במכתב העוסק בעיקר בהשקפת עולמה ?

3- מעבר לכך ,לדעתי,הפרשנות של סוזנה לדבריה של ענת מטר שגויים.  הטענה שהיה מוטב לו המדינה לא היתה קמה, היא לא "הזמנה להעלם"  כפי שהיא מפרשת. גם בובר, מגנס, עקיבאארנסט סימון, הוגו ברגמן, הנריאטה סולד ומיטב האינטלקטואלים בישוב היהודי בתקופה הפרה-מדינית סברו שהקמת מדינה יהודית ככזאת עלולה להיות   טעות שמביאה איתה סכנות חדשות., זה לא אומר שהם 'ביקשו שנעלם'.  כמו כן:הכרה בפשעים שהמדינה ביצעה מיום הקמתה ועד ימים אלה  לא אומרת שעלינו להעלם אלא שעלינו ליישר מבט, להכיר בהם,  ורק אז, אחרי שנתעמת עם הפרקים המבישים בעברנו,  יש סיכוי שנשנה את דרכנו.  


כשמדברים על פוליטיקה , כולל גם בשדה הפסיכואנליזה,  אנו נכנסים לתחום הלא-מודע ולשיח האדון.  לכן, עלינו לחשוב היטב איך להכניס את הפסיכואנליזה לתוך הפוליטיקה בפרט בקהילתינו בה השתקנו זמן רב את הנושא בשל ממשי כואב.  

סולי פלומנבאום.











למי נתונה זכות הדיבור? נעה פרחי

                                   



ישראל. 24 למאי: הצגת התאטרון ״אסירי הכיבוש״ מצונזרת מפסטיבל עכו. המנהל האמנותי מתפטר, שמונה הפקות מצטרפות למחאה. 9 ליוני: שר החינוך מפרסם ״קוד אתי״ שנכתב ע״י הפילוסוף אסא כשר. הקוד טוען שכל דעה פוליטית תהיה אסורה בהוראה האוניבסיטאית, והוא יועמד לאישורה של המועצה להשכלה הגבוהה. 22 ליוני: דובר הארגון ״שוברים שתיקה״ נחקר תחת אזהרה בהוראתה של שרת המשפטים, עקב עדותו הציבורית על השתתפותו בחקירה אלימה שהתרחשה במהלך שירותו הצבאי בשטחים, אקט שהוא טוען כתקיפה. קריאה לשרת המשפטים מופצת ברשתות החברתיות: תחקרי גם אותנו!

כיצד ניתן להבין אירועים אלו, שמצביעים על איום הדרגתי על חופש הביטוי בישראל, ואת ההתנגדות הספונטנית שבאה בעקבותם? אולי בגישה זהירה, על ידי בחינה של הרכב החברה הישראלית ותפנית בשיח שהיא עברה. מדובר בחברה שמונעת על ידי המתחים בה, שלפעמים הם זבי דם, אופוזיציות וקצוות קיצון : היהודי האשכנזי לעומת המזרחי, יהודי הגלות לעומת יהודי ישראל, ״אני קודם כל ישראלי״ מול ״אני קודם כל יהודי״, אלו ש״יורדים״ מול ה״עולים״, הדתי מול החילוני, הישראלי היהודי מול הפלסטיני. צמדים מסמניים אלו נוגעים בעיקר בספקטרום של הדתיות והלאומיות, יש כמובן רבים אחרים. כל המתחים האלו סרוגים זה בזה ויוצרים מרקם חיים מורכב ועשיר. אך בסופו של דבר, למי זכות הדיבור?

הטרוגניות זו אינה רק תוצר של נסיבות היסטוריות. גם אם היא פוריה, זה לא לטובת רווח השוק - כדוגמת המודל האמריקאי - שעבורו היא נסבלת. על הטרוגניות זו של הזדהויות, הגברים והנשים בישראל מגנים בגופם. ההיפותזה שלי היא הבאה: אם ההטרוגניות נשמרת ככזו, מוגנת ככזו, זה ביחס לעיקרון מהותי במחשבת ישראל - ההכרח בקריאות שונות של הטקסט.

נקח לדוגמא את ההגדה של פסח. בערב החג אנו קוראים בקול רם סיפור זה של יציאה מעבדות לחרות. המסר אותו אנו מתבקשים לשאת הוא ש״בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים״. בו בעת, לאורך כל הסיפור מצויות פרשנויות שתומכות ומגבירות את הטקסט התנ״כי, פרשנויות שמעידות על קיומה של שיחה. מדוע ארבעים שנים במדבר? רב זה אומר כך, ורב שני אומר אחרת, וכן הלאה. גם אם ההזדהות עם הניצול הינה קו יסוד, היהודי טומן בחובו תמיד את החופש של הפירוש, בשיחה. יש אל אחד, ויש ריבוי קריאות של הטקסט.

מאחורי פירוש, נמצא סובייקט. באמירה שלו, הסובייקט לבד. כך אני קוראת את גרשום שולם, בכתבו הפוליטי להתראות מ- 1918, ״הקהילה טוענת לבדידות: לא את האפשרות שכולם יחד ירצו אותו דבר, אלא את הבדידות המשותפת - רק זו יוצרת קהילה.״[1] אני מגנה על הרעיון של המשכיות: ההטרוגניות בישראל נמצאת ביחס למה שנתמך ונסבל במשך מאות שנים בהיסטוריה היהודית, אותו שולם מכנה ״הבדידות המשותפת״.

בדידות זו, עליה מדבר שולם, שונה מאוד מזו אותה אנו חווים כאשר זכות הדיבור מוגבלת, כאשר דעותינו הפוליטיות השונות לא מוצאות ביטוי במרחב הדיבור, כאשר הקריאה הנבדלת אסורה.

מעל מאה שנים, ציר הטרור שנמתח בין קצוות הצמד תוקף-קרבן תופס מקום מרכזי בישראל. על בסיס זה, חל שינוי בשיח. אפשר לאתר את נקודת המפנה בשנת 1967 עם הכיבוש, בשנת 1995 עם רצח רבין, או בשנת 2014 במבצע ״צוק איתן״ בעזה. כמו בהתקדמות על טבעת מוביוס, אי אפשר לדייק באיזה רגע חל ההיפוך, אך לפתע, נמצאים בצד השני של הדבר. מיחס חברתי שמושתת על ההכרח לפרש, אנו מוצאים עצמנו בהיפוך מוביוס, באלימות שמתעוררת עקב כל קריאה בתוככי החברה הישראלית. מעבר מן ההכרחי אל הבלתי אפשרי.

קשה מאוד לדעת באיזה אופן הפסיכואנליזה יכולה לפעול בפוליטיקה בישראל. אולי בשימוש בקשר האינטימי שיש לפסיכואנליזה עם הפירוש, לא כל כך במשלב של ההכרחי כי אם בקונטינגנטי, מה שיכול להוביל למפגש.




[1] Gershom Scholem, « Adieu. Lettre ouverte à Siegfried Bernfeld et contre les lecteurs de la revue Jerubaal », Le prix d'Israël. Écrits politiques 1917-1974, Eclat, Paris-Tel Aviv, 2017. p. 46.