|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Part 4. Drive Positions. (Positions pulsionnelles)
Karl Louvet
|
The following is a
translation of an article by Louvet in which he describes how the Drive
Circuit theory with succes can be used for a more detailed and deeper
interpretation of individual factors, depending on their rank inside of their
vector. Louvet succeeded even to use this approach to explain the
interrelationship inside some of the ambivalent factors. He demonstrates this
by a “step by step” analysis of the (k+) and (k-) dynamics, inside of the (k ±). This is also true for his example of the (m ±) reaction. Characteristic for Karl is that he
illustrates his conclusions with concrete examples in a very picturesque way.
As a former test psychologist who in the sixties and seventies often had to
interprete test material of people living in other parts of Sweden (blind diagnostics), I really enjoyed myself to read Louvets subtle interpretations.
I think that his example of “obsession” in this article with success can be
used in teaching the Szonditest.
As usual even this
translation is done by me in a very liberal way and I have to take
responsability for all the mistakes which might have been made. However I
count with your tolerance as I am not a professional translator.
Leo Berlips, editor
>www.szondiforum.com<
==============================================
Instinctual
positions (k ±)
The factor (k) and
the shaping of the sensoric aspect.
It seemed possible to
me to more specifically approach the factor (k) according to its sensoric
function (mise en forme sensorielle) more specific when it is in the service
of the subject as shown in (k+), or when it is used in the service of the
group in the form (k-).
It are mainly the creative persons
who give us the possibility to understand with ease the application of the
formal rules for personal use as shown by (k+). In contrast to thos
our education made us oversensitive when using the (k) sensoric function in
the use of a group and its standards: “One does not say these things in the
home of the Smits”… , Behave correctly, … You have not yet the age to look
at this TV program… ”.
In (k+), it is reality that is
the object of the sensoric form that is shaped by the subject, based
on his own experience and according to his ideas. Instead in (k-) it is
rather the subject who is the object of a reality to which he must
adept. In (k+), the subject explores reality to shape a personal
setting in the world which surrounds him and which is made specific to his
way of seeing, his customs etc. He creates, adapts and transforms to
reproduce a reality according to his needs.
Instead in (k-) it is mainly the
subject who is the object of the reality to which he has to conform. In (k+)
the person explores reality in order to collect his own baggage from the
world that is around him, and that corresponds to his way of seeing, his
taste, and his habits. He creates, adapts, transforms in order to shape a
reality according to his needs. In (k-) it concerns the strict adaptation to
reality. This adaptation is done because the subject subordinates his own
experience and dedicates the use of his interests to the interests of
community. He “withdraws” his libido away from his own way of looking at the
world (his vision of his environment) to strengthen the community’s way of
interpreting, characteristic of that what one calls apprehension of reality.
In short: in (k+),
it is the subject´s experience which gets priority, whereas in (k-) it
is the experience of the group that precedes.
What happens in
k±?
The method Mathieu
22,21 explores the possibilities of the way the factors overlap, seen from
the perspective of the logical hierarchy of the circuit. Thus, according to
this reasoning, what happens in (k-) is that one has made one step forward in
relation to the (k+), in other words, the way of working of the (k+) is
encapsulated in the the access to what happens on the level of (k-). Indeed,
the higher logical level, as shown by (k-) dictates thus the finality of the
(k±): the conformity to reality. But with (k±), this passes through the (k+).
What will this mean?
In
(k±), the subject decides what is reality according to his personal
experience. He knows reality better than the others.
It is typically for
what we call a “professional deformation”: The subject has an personal experiece
(k+) that gives him the impression that he knows better than the others how
to guarantee the concordance with reality.
Let us see the case
of the hooligan and the police officer. The hooligan Roger is a
smallscale robber. He is accustomed to deceive, to make shadowy deals. His
rules, are those of his daily life, of he environment in which he evolved for
good or worse. He made his own experience and earned not badly money lately.
Thus, he bought a superb motor bike, powerful, exactly as he wanted, not as
the scrap which he used lately. He is proud and it is very happy. It is
parked in front of the house where he lives as he does not have a garage and
his apartment is located at the side of the garden. After he brought back his
motor bike, he is despairingly anxious, he will look constantly out of the
window of the corridor which is next to the street. Just to see whether all
is well. He has a good trained imagination. He knows all the trics to steal
a motor bike like his, rapid and effective. It are the tricks of the pros
who pass through his head. He knows also the district in short he will see
for the tenth time his beautiful motor bike, as soon as he hears an engine
which makes an abnormally noise, as soon as it started to get dark, even if only
half an hour has gone since he was there. … In short, Roger has got an
“obession” in relation to his motor bike. He “knows very well” what it is the
reality of the street, one can in vain tell him to remain quiet, he laughs,
“if you only did known how things happen”… His experience mediates the access
to reality because he thinks that his –experience- is more adequate than
that of common sense to supervise his motorized machine Phallus. The common
sense in him does not has the force to castrate (limit) the experience of
Roger, his vision of things is stronger even if he knows that everyone is not
a thief like him, but that is not enough, he must check to be sure. It is too
important this motor bike, it is a narcissistic object, central for his
personal image. His obsession translates the “one way and return”
ticket between the validation of reality and its mediatization by the
intimate experience of the subject. It is the
checking function of the (k±) which oscillates in a loop between the
attraction of the narcissistic object and the risk to lose it.
(Another example): The police officer
Arthur is a skilful inspector who has just stopped a ciminal young person,
called Roger. Since three hours he “works him through ” in connection with an
armed robbery made in the area lately. Roger corresponds to be a good suspect
for this business. For Arthur much is at play in this business, there is a
promotion in sight in the service. Sure of his experience, Arthur “knows
better than anyone” with whom he deals and he intends to prove it. Thus he is
obsessed with Roger, question about question follow each other until he
cracks. “Reality, is to make him say what one wants”, Arthur knows much about
how to do this, it is not his first policeinterrogation. In fact, it is his
experience which at risk in front of his colleagues who would rather tend to
pass to another suspect. Although Roger certifies in vain that he is innocent
and submissively answers the questions, nothing helps, the police officer
keeps to his bait because he “is convinced” of his culpability.
In short the (k±) will intervene each time when a person
“knows better” than the other what reality is, in other words when the
question of the veracity of reality is at stake in connection with something
of importance in the eyes of this person. For them, it is not a question “to
image personal ideas ” in their head, they will undoubtedly say to you that
their perspicacity is connected to the maximum with their capacity on this
question of truth.
If we must refer to
an anguish, it would be the fear of losing something of importance,
something that one estimates and until now is in our possession or in our
range. In fact, as soon as the experience of the subject appears more
convincing to him than that of common sense he will engage the function of
checking (k±) “to be sure” until the end, to be right more than the others.
If the reason for this reaction is a “beautiful object” highly valuated in
the narcissistic economy of the subject, then appears a stubbornness ensured
against all blows. In order that the subject avoids entering this torment of
the checking of reality according to his own experience, he needs a well
founded and stable (k-), a (k-) that imposes the idea to the subject that
people are not like him and that his vision of everything is deformed by a
way of giving too much attention to things with the risk to become stupid
about it.
Therefore, the
torment (k±) is caused either because the (k-) is unstable, or because the
reason is really invaluable as seen with the eyes of the subject who will
prefer to check three times rather than one; or the two caracteristics at the
same time.
=========================================================
|
|
(m±)
|
|
With a (m±), I
suggest “a need for contact (m+) in the service of a need to rupture a
contact (m-)”.
It is what occurs
when one set up a kind of contact ritual with the intention to start a
definitive rupture when the latter is difficult to realize abruptly. For
example, the girl who decides to leave the family bosom says to her mother:
“I move because I became adult, it is necessary that I learn how to live my
life apart from the family. In any event, I am not far, I move to the street
aside, and will visit you every Sunday, and with the mobil telephone I offered
you a month ago I am not not lost out of sight.
The (m±) will be
active each time when a form of contact is intercalated as a transitional
ritual within the framework of a rupture of contact that is badly assumed or
not easily accepted.
If the (m+) increases
its influence, there is an unpleasant feeling because the people too often
see each other. If the share of the (m-) increases, there is bad feeling
because of the feeling of abandonment or indifference, which comes to
undermine the relation.
==========================================================
|
To consider the
tritendances with the (k±)
Two
possibilities: (k± p+) and (k± p-).
With
(k± p+): the influence of the (p+) dominates the others because it is
the highest in the hierarchy of the circuit. The (p+) represents value systems
which register the subject in a historical temporal continuity and the
combination with (k±) is in the service of this Cause, by holding strict
account that (k-) does not have any more precedence over the (k+) since the
absolute power is moved onto the (p+) thus removing from the (k-) its
possibility to frame the (k+). We
thus have thus (k+) and (k-) in their original form (condition objectale) as
support or mediator in the service of the (p+):
The actual (object) condition of the (k+): is the outcome
of the subject´s experience and a reflection of the support for the (p+)
project. It is something like
a personal luggage that distinquishes itself from the common collective
thought, following our specific sensory working through of our personal vision
of the World. In other words one does not see all the same thing at the same
time, even if we are in presence with another person.
This difference is the result of a very
personal mnemic-trace, the result of the selected sensory interpretation of
the “environment” (I do not employ the word “reality” to mark a difference with
the common sense.). The (k+) is the guarantee for the existence and
maintenance of this mnemic-trace. The actual quality (object condition) of the
(k+) means here the experience of the subject in the service of the (p+),
neither more nor less than the share of (k-). In the absence of (k+p0), it
cannot be question of the Almighty narcissism.
Two types of
formatting.
The Ego has as a function
to shape (design) the libido, it inserts it in a formal process, it holds it
in a form, it takes form while crossing the Ego. This creates initially a
specific form that is (reflecting) itself, work of ipseity, logic of a
homogenèse. After this the libido can be formatted well beyond the Ego
that becomes a servant in stakes higher than its ipseity. In this process of
formatting, it seemed to to me sensible since my experience with creative
persons to specify that there are two types of formatting:
The factor (k)
deals with the sensory aspect, while the factor (p) deals with
representations, not forgetting that the sensory aspects make the support for
the représentationnel and vice versa:
The
formatting of the factor (k) is a sensoric formatting
: The Ego organizes its perception according to a grid of personal
interpretation. It makes its own language, its threshold of pain and of
resistance, its appetites, etc. When (k-) arrives, a sensory formatting takes
place, but in the service of the group. It is typically the case of the
military service: to change one´s own speech, to change one´s pain
threshold, to modulate one´s appetites, etc. The factor (k) is thus
proposed here as a way to modify our sensations either as private (k+) or
collective (k-) perception.
·
The formatting of the (p) factor concerns the
representations. Once the grid of sensory interpretation of the subject is
established in the factor (k), the factor (p) comes to modulate the
associations of ideas and images resulting from this grid of interpretation and
formats a representation either for private (p+) or collective (p-) use.
Eve in paradise
To
give an evaluation of the passage of (p-) towards the (k+), let us turn towards
the original sin. When Eve is confronted with the desire of absolute power
suggested by the Snake, we are in the presence of the birth of a personal
outlook which breaks the filiation with the system. God said that one did not
ought to touch the tree which belongs to the paradise environment: One may look
at this tree from the right-hand side, from left, from the bottom to top but,
don’t touch! The Filiation is at this price: nothwithstanding the way in which
you look (carry your glance), it will not be taken into “account” in order to
preserve the absolute power established at the origin apart from any personal
way of looking (glance).
When Eve decides to transgress, she does so using a
personal sensory form which henceforth will from now on will decide the
judgment of good and evil. The absolute power
falls under the sensoriality of Eve, in the way how she uses her senses (her
vision of the paradise) and decides by herself and in herself her own
destination system: at the price of the judgment of the good and evil. It
breaks with the destination implanted in the original system - the word of God:
“The woman thus considered that the fruit of this
tree was good to be eaten ; that it was beautiful and pleasant to see.” (The Holy
Bible, Lemaistre De Sacy, page 3, 3-6, volume I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note by
translator:
The following
section in Karl´s article I found very difficult to read and therefore I
took the liberty to put some notes inside Karls text to explain my personal
subjective interpretation of some of the complicated key words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
continuation karl´s text:
Instead of being an objectal support for a filiation
(p-), her sensory formatting henceforth becomes the true subject of a
filiation with her self (k+): it is the judgment of the good and the evil
starting from her own sensory condition. She made made a con-sideration, that struck the continuity system
and diverted it from its first stake by turning the whole system towards a new
(original) focus. The absolute power //as represented by (p+), translator//
carries out this con-sideration because the absolute power is a principle of
the destination in oneself, it is always a sideration which results from the stop
of the universal flow: a fascination, a passion, a catatonie, a perverse
scenario, a nonhistorical static temporality. All the weight of the
filiations´s legimity with a system will rest from now on on sensoric
formatting specific to the subject. This absolute power in the sensoric
formatting engages a new way of looking at the original value:
“At the same time their eyes were opened to both of
them” (the Holy Bible, Lemaistre De Sacy, page 3, 3-7, volume I)
A new way of looking, a new legitimacy, another
filiation. It is to say that the “subject (k+)” depends from now on on his/her
vision of the world to legitimate herself and of nothing else. The grid of
sensoric interpretation of the “subject (k+)” is necessarily a foundation for
its legitimacy. It is obliged to see the things in her/his way, (s)he does not
have any more the choice if not it is the Fall. That explains the perverse
tenacity to cling to one´s vision of things: the sensoric is the lever
founder of the subjective quality whereas for a subject (p -), it is the last
of its concerns.
Common sense (k-) and
common representations (p-)
Thus
the common sense of (k-) is a way of seeing, hearing, of feeling one´s
body, of feeding one self,… according to a strictly normative use defined by
common sense, while the factor (p-) indicates the luggage of the collective
representations. For example, the fact of liking and of choosing the red color
for one´s mourning dress could be of (k+) type because it is the color of
blood - that of the fundamental bond, because it is as such the subject sees
the things “with its heart”. But with (k-) one does not put such conspicuous
colors and one chooses dark tones like black or blue marinades, “conventional”
for a burial. Another example, if a subject seriously can consider his whole
life as the design of a water engine in (p+), in (p-) everyone will be able to
say to you thaty such water engines do not exist.
Ambivalent orientation
of the (k± p-) and the (k± p+) xxx
Within
the framework of the (k± p-),
it is the factor (k-) which carries out the dance by imposing the stake of the
adequacy with the common standards of reality sense (cf. the parameter “Popular
or V” in the test of Rorschach). As a support of this checking, two
possibilities are offered to the subject: the (k+) and (p-). The choice of
these factors translates the approval of the subject for (k+) and (p-) without
one dominating over the other. All
will depend on the reason for the checking (k-) according to the considered
perspectives (k+ and/or p-). For example, one time ago when the majority of
people considered that the place of a woman was at home, in the kitchen as a
family mother. Imagine two theoretical possibilities for a woman of this time
who wonders about her female condition by making (k± p-):
If the personal
experience of the (k+) confirms the collective (p-) opinion, the result of the
(k± p-) is that the adequate place of a woman at that time is to be a mother in
the kitchen, that is “her reality”.
If her (k+)
denies the common opinion and asserts a quite other personal experience which
has nothing to do with the primacy of the statute of the housewife, she is
stuck between two fires: at one side the collective majority opinion, and at
the other her own experience which diverges sometimes completely. Consequently
the checking (k-) can not decide since the supports by which the function of
ego adaptation goes through does not make it possible to make a unanimous
decision. The approval of ego
legalist is paradoxical in itself. The condition
legalist of ego is blocked in an contradiction: there is a stand still, the
libido oscillates between two visions of the world. It is an ambivalence even a
dilemma. As mostly the emergence of the (k+) has a tendency to break the
collective participation, one has to expect a difference in vieuw between the
(k+) and (p-) even when these two factors are in in a objective condition. With
an Ego (k± p-), it is probable that the access to the common law standard is
compromised (with a possibility of a limitation, castration and a less
efficient symbolic system) and that the adaptation of the subject to reality
becomes indecisive.
Indeed, even if the (k+) provides the subject with a
significant experience, it should not be forgotten that the iconoclast principle
of (k-) plays against the subject. The orientation (k-) is more favorable in
its principle regarding to support (p-) than to support (k+). One will have to
expect dilemmas in the event of strong personalities with a rich person luggage
(k+) vis-a-vis tough cultural stereotypes within a framework where the
adaptation of Ego takes precedence over its own will. The case of the woman who
wonders about her will to make a career at an age where she might be mother is
typical, especially if the culture in which she is embedded is insideusement
repressive with the principle of woman emancipation. Tormented by this
question, she is likely to remain in a status quo indécidable: neither
the promising professional career nor a happy maternity. Under these conditions,
the reaction (k± p-) can cause the withdrawal, the “escape” and cause the idea
to have lost something of importance. Anyhow, that does not seem to me specific
as an anxieity, this kind of existential stress is present in everyone, it is
enough to liten to the discussion of people to find it.
Lastly,
before passing to the k± p+), it is judicious to remember that the (k+) and the
(p-) put in scene in the legalist (k-) Ego two different existential methods:
a.
the (k+) allows the person
to have clear identity without necessarily resorting to the question of the
direction, “it is so he sees things”. That the others do not see the same thing
as he does not disturb him deeply. The filiation is not the criterion of
legitimacy, it is “as he feels it” before any other consideration. The grid of
personal sensoric interpretation has priority over the question of the sense
included in the common representations.
b. xxx
b. the (p-) gives a legitimacy via a participation in
the representations which form sense and are the established answers to
existential questions. The personal vision of people, one makes fun of , their
way of seeing is not welcome, quite the opposite. The answers are there, no
need “to see”, “to reflect”, “to have one´s own vision of things”. One only has “only take part, that is
enough”. The stake is to once for all to bind
the representation with the question of the sense for all, and not to decode
reality according to a grid of (personal) sensory reading. The common
representation aligns the grid of sensory interpretation of the subject on the
normative representation. xxx
This difference
in nature between the two processes can explain that there are two types of
speeches of the “(k± p-) person”, two speeches which do not agree because they
are not on the same logical level in spite of the fact that these two speeches
are in the service of the adaptation to reality: One is based on the principle
of the filiation with the representations (p-), the other is based on the
principle of “my bodies belong to me and I see what I see as I am what I am”.
This is not the case with (k± p+): the bottom of the (k+) speech of comparable
nature with that of the speech (k-) but directed in another way.
In the case of the k± p+, it is the (p+) which carries out the dance. Within this
framework, two sensory grids of interpretation are harmonized or not to
validate the project (p+) the Almighty (the verb “to validate” indicates the
fact of shaping ……..??? in conformity with the p+ project). The (p+) “knows
where is the direction”, it is the donor of answer to the question of the
direction to give to the representations. The factors (k+) and (k-) are only
its adjudants: the personal experience in (k+) and/or the experience of the
others in (k-) (within the meaning of the way of looking at things, sensory
experience).
Either the way of seeing (k+) joints the way of
seeing (k-) and the subject skilfully carves its vision of the things to feed
the (p+) project; or the sensory vision of (k+) diverges from that of (k-) and
the ambivalence between the two equal forces are in object condition. That can
go from the hesitation to indecision while passing by various degrees of
personal criticism. The range of the interactions between (k+) and (k-) is
broad.
|
 (h±
s±)
|
|
The (h± s±) would be
the translation in the test of the mechanism of symbolic castration taken
instantly in the Sexual vector in a child. (cf analysis of little Gilles in
the files). This (S±±) reaction is located before anything else within
the framework
(h-) since this
factor dominates the logic of the sexual circuit. The (h+) which expresses
the erogeneity of the child is thus in the service of (h+) In other words,
the erogeneity obeys abstract stakes. Moreover the (s-) is also in the service of the (s+). That means that the phantasm obeys the logic of the
object, it must take account of the object and the real stakes of the object.
If we locate the mother like the coveted object, the child cannot any more
fantasmer with his own way in the service of his own erogeneity (h+ s+), it
must subject its libido to the object stake such as it is at “the outside” of
the will of the child (s+): he cannot fantasmer his adherence to his mother
as he wants and enjoy it in his own way. Abstract stakes (h-) crown the whole
and oblige the libido to forward by a logical support answering an
legalist-realistic-adaptive stake (s+). This mediation of the
erogeneity (h+) and the phantasms which could capture it (s-) by a logically
higher framework devoted to external stakes outside of the child (h- s+)
would makes it possible to see the instantaneous action of the symbolic
castration on the psychism of the child. However, this interpretation
nevertheless poses the precedence of the (s+) on the (s-) but, the absolute
power is in
(h-), (s+) does not
have authority since the absolute power does not belong to him any more.
Consequently, is (s+) worth as much as (s-)? The question of the
hierarchisation of several intermediate positions in the circuit under the
aegis of a symbolic castration position remainder to question. The
absolute power lies in the (h-) (i.e. in the possibility that its appearance
will tally the other reactions) and the other positions of the circuit are
all in a object statua owing to the fact that they do not have any more the
absolute power. Although being object positions within the framework of (h-),
the intermediate positions comprise, in my opinion, a hierarchisation between
them, but under the aegis of H of course. How to reason interprete this hierarchy? Among the objects which surround us, some are of more
importance than others according to the point of view of the subject. For
example, at the stage PP2, the objects which médiatisent best the
narcissistic valorization will be regarded as more important than the others,
especially because they médiatisent best the access to the structural
condition of the narcissistic absolute power. This idea of a hierarchy
starting from the mediating value of an intermediate position towards the
access to absolute power makes it possible to pose hierarchical levels within
the circuit, even with positions under object statute. If the key of
the (h± s±) is (h-), the intermediate positions which develop this position
as well as possible the fourth circuit will be better mediating than the
other positions. In fact, the position which appears right before (h-) is
that which médiatise best the access to the problems of (h-). Thus,
even in object condition, the (s+) preserves its early product (on the s and
the h+) following its greater faculty for médiatiser the problems (h-)
xxx
The
hiérarchisaton of the intermediate positions is thus possible in
object condition with this criterion of mediatization. Compared to the h+, S
is ontogénétiquement closer to H according to the logic of the
circuit, it médiatise thus better the access to H than the position
h+, which seems obvious. We thus find in this double overlap h± s±, the
hierarchy of the circuit: tally H with s+ > S > h+, according to the
point of view of an access to an absolute power residing out of H.
|
|
d+ m+
|
|
In d+ m+, the contact
m+ is with the service of the detachment d+. What a detachment mediatized by
a contact? Since the factor m is anobjectal (pre-object), there is a common
point between the m+ and the d+: lifting of the object investments. It would
be a detachment which forwards by a sensational logic (feelings). Perhaps
should it be understood by there that the subject consumes the situations
which it meets in their denying the possibility of finding an object there. “It
does nothing but pass”, “super environment” but without object to be
invested, without durable reality object, an environment “holidays” as when
it is known that that will not last and that what counts, it is to live
feelings, as much as possible, “to change the ideas”… and the objects.
Especially thanks to a contact (m+) which médiatise object lifting
(d+): as a practitioner sensory consumption with the service of the
processual anobjectality of the d+, the subject denies any possibility of
durable object investment. “That
does not take”. “It is right for the fun”.
It is the
position m which tallies the d+. Thus, the detachment (d+) is with the
service of the rupture (m). The d+ unties the nodes, breaks the fasteners,
désarrime the libido. The absolute power in m, it is the rupture of
the bonds like principal stake of the vector of the Contact and it is
médiatisé by a detachment d+. C m would be less effective because the d+ adds really a
procedure to give punch to the m, it is like a blow of chisel. The m is
médiatisé by the d+ (in object condition = like support of the
stake m or, in other words, in position of object with respect to the m) i.e.
it is about a d+ within the meaning of a departure, voyage, within the
meaning of putting distance and to pose a variation in the contact. The d+ in object condition is what makes it possible to
measure that that is detached. The detachment (d+) comes here to give all the
measurement of the rupture (m).
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
