UDC: 165.4
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-4-115
EDN: TEVDFJ


viewing

AUTOCOMMUNICATION AS A CRITIQUE OF CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOANALYSIS

A. V. Markov
Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: markovius@gmail.com

O. A. Shtayn
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: shtaynshtayn@gmail.comu

Abstract. Contemporary philosophical psychoanalysis is increasingly turning to mythological stories in order to explain the phenomenon of autocommunication as a constant loss of self and encounter with self. The relevance of the article is determined by the complex superimposition of such mythological plots, requiring the involvement of certain interdisciplinary instruments of analysis in philosophical research. In the Lacanian tradition of psychoanalysis, we suggest that the story of Eurydice serves to explain Dora’s case and substantiates the autocommunicative core of experience. This plot allowed us to criticize both positivist and economic (investment, fetishism) aspects of classical psychoanalysis and to show the epistemological potential of autocommunication as overcoming the totality of the uncanny and returning «to one’s home».

The aim of the article is to investigate the epistemological potential of autocommunication, to which psychoanalysis gives a narrative dimension, and the modern philosophy of the self and the alien – an axiological meaning; the task is to clarify, using the example of the newest psychoanalysis’ work with the uncanny, the limits of autocommunication as a mechanism of both seduction (Sirens) and the return of all participants of future communication to themselves (their own mind). The main method of the study was a metacritique of psychoanalysis from the perspective of general notions of the structure of experience and encounter with the other across generations.

The main results of the study are that, contrary to the models of the uncanny as fear of encountering oneself or one’s place in the world, another understanding of the uncanny is possible as a choice that all people face in the continuation of the human race. In this case, the happiness of continuation of the species or creative self-realization overcomes the initial impulses of creative temptations, turning reasoning alone with oneself into a mirror of communication with others that has already taken place.

The newness consists in the fact that the paper solved the main contradiction of the theory of autocommunication, which is divided into two parts: the illusion of the desire to communicate and the imperative encounter with one’s speech as a stranger, creating a situation of joint communication. It has been shown that, contrary to the common view in philosophy, this joint communication is socially determined and not at all an extension of the internal topology or structure of thought. The contradiction can be resolved by adopting the concept of «the gift of time» (Derrida), which overcomes the antinomy of exchange and gift.

Directions for further research on the basis of this work imply the development of a consistent theory of autocommunication that does not reduce it to individual cases of finding the self or postulating the other and that takes into account the social framework of any communication.

Key words: psychoanalysis, Lacan, Bracha Ettinger, Barbara Cassin, autocommunication, gift, exchange, philosophical imaginary.

Cite as: Markov A. V., Shtayn O. A. (2024) [Autocommunication as a critique of contemporary philosophical psychoanalysis]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 4, pp. 115–124. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-4-115.


References

  1. Bolnova, E. V. (2016) [Semantics of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice in the works of V. I. Ivanov]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo [Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. N. I. Lobachevsky]. Vol. 4, pp. 172–176. – EDN: XAXZZD. (In Russ.).
  2. Cassin, B. (2000) Effekt sofistiki [The effect of sophistry]. M.: University Book, 240 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  3. Klyukina, L. A. (2020) [Concepts of autocommunication in the humanities of the 20th century: comparative analysis]. Chelovek. Kul’tura. Obrazovaniye [Man. Culture. Education]. Vol. 4 (38), pp. 11–28. – https://doi.org/10.34130/2233-1277-2020-4-11. – EDN: VRQRMZ. (In Russ.).
  4. Meillassoux, K. (2018) Chislo i sirena. Chteniye «Broska kostey» Mallarme [Number and siren. Reading «A Throw of the Dice» by Mallarmé]. M.: Rhinoceros, 224 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  5. Muskhelishvili, N. L., Shreider, Yu. A. (1997) [Autocommunication as a necessary component of communication]. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Ser. 2 Informatsionnyye protsessy i sistemy [Scientific and technical information. Ser. 2 Information processes and systems]. Vol. 5, pp. 1–10. (In Russ.).
  6. Muskhelishvili, N., Antonenko, A., Bazlev, M. (2019) [About the religious method of Ignatius of Loyola in the «Spiritual Diary»]. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, religion, church in Russia and abroad]. Vol. 37. No. 4, pp. 212–233. – https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2019-37-4-212-233. – EDN: JHHZUC.
  7. Postnikova, T. V. (2006) [The concept of autocommunication in the semiotics of Yu. M. Lotman. Philosophical and anthropological analysis of the film]. Aspekty: Sb. statey po filosofskim problemam istorii i sovremennosti: Vyp IV [Aspects: Sat. articles on philosophical problems of history and modernity: Issue IV]. M.: Modern Notebooks, pp. 120–132. (In Russ.).
  8. Ryaguzova, E. V. (2016) [«Temporary rift» of communicative practices of a traumatized personality]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Psikhologiya i pedagogika [Bulletin of the Russian Peoples’ Friendship University. Series: Psychology and pedagogy]. Vol. 1, pp. 55–61. – EDN: VSAPVJ. (In Russ.).
  9. Safronova, L. V. (2004) [Mythodesigner’s commentary on Pelevin’s texts]. Kritika i semiotika [Criticism and semiotics]. Vol. 7, pp. 227–238. – EDN: VZQXDV. (In Russ.).
  10. Sokolova, O. V. (2014) [Concept advertising in avant-garde poetic texts]. Istoricheskaya i sotsial’no-obrazovatel’naya mysl’ [Historical and social-educational thought]. Vol. 2, pp. 300–302. – EDN: SFFOED. (In Russ.).
  11. Tupinamba, G. (2024) Zhelaniye psikhoanaliza. Opyty lakanovskogo myshleniya [Desire for psychoanalysis. Experiments in Lacanian thinking]. M.: Ripol Classic, 464 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  12. Shelkovnikov, A. Yu. (2008) [Meanings without semiosis]. Filosofskiye nauki [Philosophical Sciences]. Vol. 12, pp. 70–87. – EDN: JXGBNR. (In Russ.).
  13. Ettinger, B. (2013) Likhtenberg. Diotima i matrichnyy perenos [Lichtenberg. Diotima and matrix transfer]. Cabinet Ω: Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger. St. Petersburg: Skifia-print, 2013. pp. 61–124. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  14. Ettinger, B. Lichtenberg. Dora’s Dream / trans. from Hebrew Igor Rodin // Lacanalia. Available at: http://www.lacan.ru/journals/21-dora-madonna/braha-lihtenberg-ettinger-son-dory/ (accessed: 26.01.2024).
  15. Astvatsaturov, А., Dviniatin, F. (2024) «Sirens» by Joyce and Joys of Sirin: Lilac, Sounds, Temptations. Arts. Vol. 13, No. 3. – https://doi.org/10.3390/arts13030077. (In Eng.).
  16. Derrida, J. (1991) Donner le temps. Vol. 1: la fausse monnaie. Paris: Galilee, 232 p. (In Eng.).
  17. Freud, S. (1933) L’inquiétante étrangeté, trad. fr. M. Bonaparte et E. Marty, Essais de psychanalyse appliquée, Gallimard, « Idées ». (In Eng.).
  18. Freud, S. (1947) Das Unheimliche [1919] Gesammelte Werke. Bd. 12. (In Eng.).
  19. Freud, S. (1955) The Uncanny. Strachey Standard Edition. Vol. 17. (In Eng.).
  20. Freud, S. (1985) L’inquiétante étrangeté. L’Inquiétante Étrangeté et autres essais, Gallimard, «NRF». (In Eng.).
  21. Schelling, F. W. J. (1857) Philosophie der Mythologie. Idem. Sämmtliche Werke, Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 685 p. (In Eng.).