(1) The centrality of text and inscription as a method for interpreting dreams and other unconscious associations, And extending from that, the difference between meaning and "communicative finality" (a phrase I am struggling with: does it mean the "load-bearing point" is unclear? How can meaning have no meaning?). Perhaps these quotes, not written by Hewitson, but uttered by the actors in the drama of the unconscious being played out in conferences and other public spheres, could help illuminate the parchment of my thoughts:
“It is quite simply to be found in the fact that an inscription does not etch into the same side of the parchment when it comes from the printing-plate of truth and when it comes from that of knowledge.” (Lacan)
“The unconscious is a phenomenon of meaning, but without any communicative finality” (Laplanche, The Unconscious and the Id, p.103).
“the unconscious is not the message, not even the strange or coded message one strives to read on an old parchment: it is another text written underneath and which must be read by illuminating it from behind or with the help of a developer" (Leclaire)
(2) The analyst/mentor and student/analysand dynamic: What is it about psychoanalytic dialogue that sets off this chain of analysis and pedagogical relations? From last week's readings, I remember that the critiques come from former analysands. This week, I read about how Lacan felt slighted by Leclaire & Laplanche's critiques. What is it about the content of psychoanalytic dialogue that critiques feel like slights? Then I remember Felman's claim of how Lacan was Freud's "best student", because, or in spite of, the "mis-reading" of Freud. What is it about the culture of psychoanalytic dialogue (since this is a seminar about psychoanalysis and culture) that someone becomes someone's best student?
