ABSTRACT
In 1967, J. Lacan addressed a different lay audience: Is psychoanalysis purely and simply a therapy, a drug, a plaster, a magical cure or indeed something that can ever be described as a cure? Thus, as distinct from speaking about love or psychoanalysis, Allouch attests to the necessity of abiding by one’s idiocy, namely, abiding by the necessity of speaking psychoanalysis, noting that the Greek term idios refers to the singular—that which belongs only to each thing. Given that psychoanalytic discourse takes its orientation from the elusive object, there seems to be every indication that talking about psychoanalysis is an inevitable exercise in futility. The way that Lacan works ca parle as an axiom of psychoanalysis converges upon a fragment of jouissance: the force of a remainder that insists as singular. In his seminar on transference, Lacan proposed that the psychoanalyst is capable of bearing what is imposed upon him in the transference.
