Jean-Luc Giribone is a writer, an associate professor. He worked for many years at the Threshold of editorial functions. We meet today as guest of the conference Beyond my freedom? Psychoanalysis, Philosophy and Meditation [1] . Nicolas D'Inca : The dialogue between psychoanalysis and Buddhism is a novelty, but only in France, since the meetings took place in the Anglo-Saxons from the postwar period. Unlike the time, people now practice meditation. Is this a positive development in the Western approach of Buddhism do you think?
Jean-Luc Giribone : Yes, I think. I think the most devastating is that Buddhism is confined to her backyard, which is considered a kind of Eastern thing "that attracts some minds, but which actually has nothing to say. I think the opposite, and I'm not alone, it is very important that the West is open to that other continent cultural, spiritual, philosophical. It should be noted that Buddhism challenges the traditional Western system of categories. If we recall something we Westerners, that is when the fields of thought were not separated. However, these things are also separated for good reasons, there was what Bourdieu calls the field of empowerment. It became autonomous in that they have gained strength and stability and has formed the West with its wealth of thought. It's understanding that this has occurred, comes a world whose cultural mapping is different. It is not who is wrong and who is right. All mapping is perhaps in some areas of blindness, but offers a world map interesting, new and fruitful. There is something profound, even if the emergence of Buddhism did not come without what Chogyam Trungpa called "spiritual materialism." What happens now is a reflection of the West on himself, which is neither denial nor mea culpa, but rather a vision where he sees himself. When is established between two fields, one must ask: what linking is artificial or fictitious, and which is justified on the contrary, fruitful, epistemologically founded? Regarding Buddhism and psychoanalysis and the conference you mention, it is also the center of the conference, I think what is safe and undeniable fact is this notion of ego.
ND: The conference theme is "Beyond my freedom? "What about this notion of me, ego, the subject? Why this issue is so crucial for psychoanalysis today the twenty-first century and why is it so important to also understand Buddhism in the West?
Godard : Yes, there was a change of values, I guess you could say so, even if the conference will lead to more precise formulations of the concept of ego from Freud to Lacan. We went from a vision of the ego as a place of psychic synthesis to another notion, quite different, a body that is fundamentally rooted in ignorance of the truth of the matter. The function of the ego as it is reference in the dream or in everyday behavior, is largely to disregard, to ignore a certain truth that springs from the subject, and it is does not recognize as himself. The subject will be at the level of the self. The famous text of Lacan, well known, speaks of that child in the mirror stage where it is finally as a unit body, for the first time. But the problem is that I see myself as another. The moment I go to the unit is also where the unit is insane, it's not me. This proceeding in which all my life I will try to locate me, it was built from the outset as an instance alienating. It is very deep. When we see the energy that everyone puts the construction of his ego, which is central to life the classic Western: a man who spends his time maintaining a statue that is not him. Once it is chipped it is very anxious, he did nothing to counter this fear. This space that separates me from it will never be abolished, regardless of the qualities that I accumulate. There is something very profound which Lacan gave the term psychoanalysis.
ND : Lacan has this notion of open bite, fault, lack impossible to fill, which is the difference between "me" and "I" that you mentioned. And Buddhism in turn comes to this notion of non-ego, or emptiness that is a pretty bad translation of the term shunyata. Do you see a link between those two concepts?
Godard : Absolutely, absolutely, which I think is very deep in Buddhism is that the ego is the obstacle to enlightenment, because it is an illusion. So if I decide to live in that place, I actually live outside of learning that will finally wake up. This seems fundamental. The question is not who we are, because that of course we are all something and nothing. Everyone has an ego anyway and this passionate connection to the statue I mentioned we do not break, and maybe even not worth it not better to break it, because it contains in itself an incredible energy, very strong, that moves us. Hence also the futility of a path that would be to flog that, as you know, the Buddha was at first embraced and then rejected. It is still not a coincidence that he did. However, the correct way of thinking is to ask: "Where will I live? Where do I put the word I? When I say I, what I mean ultimately? "So
Freud's famous phrase that was translated as" The ego must dislodge the id, you know that Lacan steadily ironic about this translation, and proposes to replace it with "Where was I must happen. "Where it has always been that it is my duty to be j'advienne. Which took place just like that, that is to say a non-personal pronoun, and although now it should be designated by me. And if I say actually from that place, my word is true. The truth is not defined here as compliance or accuracy, but authenticity is the meaning of Lacan's reference to Heidegger. The ego will be provided not abolished, since there is no question of abolishing it, we'll talk in the symposium. In any case what happens is that ignorance which is basically I do not ignore it again, I will know this ignorance. Therefore, its negative effects will be tempered at least, that is to say that I can say I from my truth. It's something that feels absolutely, and said this seems very abstract but I think we feel some security for granted. The problem of discourse is that the ego is a defense speech of permanent self. Standing! I'm constantly attacked, it wants me, I'm taking my territory, it did not say that, why did he say? etc..
ND: These are exactly the words of Charles Trungpa when he speaks of the ego, he always says that there is a headquarters which oversees the area, because it is essential to know everything in it password, is it good for me, bad for me?
Godard : And that's without end. For we must realize that the ego is the center of the world, there is no other center as him, everything is organized for him. It is a life of constant struggle, which is extremely tiring in the end, which never gives this security it is supposed to provoke. Because actually defend themselves and why? Because the ego is constantly attacked. By definition, what I was talking earlier quoting the text of Lacan "The Mirror Stage", the fundamental flaw is that I am not that image. This fundamental flaw that is there, ever, despite all the reinforcements, I can fill it. So it indeed a life of perpetual self-defense, which often, as you may have noticed, is reversed in attack and causes aggression. It would take the thing from scratch. Ask, and then I go back to Trungpa, who wants to defend?
(To be continued. The video of the interview is available at http://www.philosophies.tv/ )
Interview by Nicolas Inca
Psychology & Meditation
By Nicolas Inca, a clinical psychologist, therapist, graduate in philosophy. He practices in the Western School of Meditation. Visit http://psychologie-meditation.blogspot.com/
[1] Paris, Saturday, November 27, 2010, organized by the association Psy & Young (contact jeunes.psy @ gmail.com )
Reprinted Buddhism News, No. 128 October 2010
Photo © Laurence Gardin
0 comments:
Post a Comment