Sunday, June 1, 2025

“a comparison with other post-Lacanian schools?”, yes, please, thanks. (ChatGPT, 2025-6-1) (自體的心理學)(車行哲學)

Certainly, my dear friend. What follows is a comparative map of post-Lacanian psychoanalytic trajectories, placing GIFRIC/388 within a constellation of others—each taking Lacan’s teachings as a launching point, but deterritorializing in different directions. This is a kind of after-Lacanian cartography, where each school responds to the void left by Lacan’s final years: the question of the real, the body, the clinic, and the future of analysis.





🗺️ Comparative Overview of Major Post-Lacanian Schools

School / Group

Founders / Figures

Clinical Focus

Relation to the Real

Politics / Ethics

Style / Language

Distinctive Contribution

GIFRIC / 388 Clinic (Quebec)

Willy Apollon, Lucie Cantin, Danielle Bergeron

Psychosis, intensive residential treatment

The Real as site of invention and symbolic reinvention

Radical ethics of subjective invention; critique of medical psychiatry

Poetic, liturgical, embodied

Psychoanalysis as symbolic re-founding after foreclosure; the analysand as creator

Lacanian Orientation / cole de la Cause freudienne (ECF) (France)

Jacques-Alain Miller, ric Laurent, etc.

General, with strong focus on ordinary psychosis and contemporary symptoms

The Real as non-sense, to be circumscribed by the sinthome

Fidelity to Lacan’s final teaching; emphasis on analyst’s desire

Logical, aphoristic, structurally elegant

Institutional transmission of Lacan’s late teaching; emphasis on one-by-one case

Campo Freudiano Latinoamericano (Argentina, Brazil, etc.)

Jorge Aleman, Nestor Braunstein (early), others

Broad, often focused on trauma and socio-political suffering

The Real as trauma and impasse of neoliberal subjectivity

Psychoanalysis as resistance against symbolic annihilation under capitalism

Rhetorically sharp, politically engaged

Fusion of psychoanalysis with Latin American politics and post-Marxism

Slovenian School

Slavoj Zizek, Alenka Zupancic, Mladen Dolar

Less clinical, more philosophical

Real as logical contradiction and ontological gap

Politico-theological reinterpretation of desire, ideology, jouissance

Dialectical, Hegelian, satirical

Lacan as philosopher of ideology; linking psychoanalysis to critique of ideology

The Freudian School of Melbourne / Norbert School

Russell Grigg, Mary Zournazi, others

Mix of psychosis and neurosis; trauma of colonization

The Real as rupture and cultural dislocation

Interrogating settler colonialism, gender, and trauma through Lacan

Reflective, hybrid, decolonial

Lacanian psychoanalysis in postcolonial context, with ethical listening

Radical Lacanians / Independent thinkers

Jamieson Webster, Bruce Fink, Genevieve Morel, Samo Tomsic etc.

Varied: neurosis, gender, body, political symptom

Real as unsymbolizable, but negotiable via symptom or sinthome

Ethics of listening; critique of commodified therapy

Interdisciplinary, existential

Keeping psychoanalysis alive in contemporary clinical, academic, and activist spaces





🧬 Key Distinctions




🔥 1. 

GIFRIC/388

 vs 

ECF (Millerian School)



  • GIFRIC focuses on residential psychoanalysis for psychosis, emphasizing symbolic rebirth and creativity.
  • ECF focuses on minimalist clinical interventions (short sessions, cartel structure), emphasizing sinthome as knot rather than reinvention.



Metaphor:

GIFRIC builds a temple in the ruins.

ECF draws a topological diagram over the wound.





🌀 2. 

GIFRIC

 vs 

Slovenian School



  • GIFRIC is deeply clinical, while the Slovenian School is primarily theoretical and political.
  • GIFRIC believes in symbolic construction after foreclosure; Žižek et al. believe we are forever in the loop of symbolic failure.



Metaphor:

GIFRIC searches for new mythologies.

Slovenes uncover the ideology inside the old myths.





🐚 3. 

GIFRIC

 vs 

Radical Lacanians



  • Both aim to revive psychoanalysis against its bureaucratization or commodification.
  • Radical Lacanians often practice outside institutions; GIFRIC creates a new kind of institution.



Metaphor:

GIFRIC builds a sanctuary for voices.

Radical Lacanians build a room to whisper in the ruins.





🌎 4. 

GIFRIC

 vs 

Latin American Campo Freudiano



  • GIFRIC spiritualizes the clinic through poetics and symbolic ritual.
  • Latin American analysts politicize it through neoliberal critique.



Metaphor:

GIFRIC seeks resonance in silence.

Campo Freudiano seeks speech in the ruins of language.





🧭 Closing: What GIFRIC Offers That Others Do Not



  • A living psychoanalytic institution centered on psychosis and subjectivization
  • A poetic, ethical language of treatment (speaking of “the glorious corpse,” “the Name-invention,” “psychotic writing”)
  • A belief that symbolic life can begin again, even after foreclosure



Or as you might say:


「在那失語之地,388 沒有尋求語言的回復,而是創造一種新的傾聽。

而每一位精神病者,都是一場尚未命名的神話。」




Would you like a visual map of this comparison? Or perhaps an essay-format version for your site or seminar?