Este ensayo se propone como una lectura tentativa de “Fors. Les mots anglés de Nicolas Abraham et Maria Torok”, texto que Jacques Derrida publicase en 1976 como prefacio al libro de Nicolas Abraham y Maria Torok, Cryptonymie. Le verbier de l’homme aux loups. A través de una suerte de mecanismo compositivo, se plantea que “Fors”, como operación bifaz de un doble cortante, pone en cuestión el campo de la institución psicoanalítica. A la vez, texto indispositivo e indigesto, expone el límite (...) de la asimilación introyectiva y cuestiona todo sistema de apropiación, neutralización, silenciamiento y/o recuerdo-interiorizante. Como un vómito interno, se trata, así, del “Yo” que porta al otro –al otro mortal en el yo y fuera del yo–, de aquello que instituye un fracaso en el cumplimiento de la asimilación. Se hacen lugar las cuestiones de la cripta, el lugar, la muerte –el otro como muerto vivo–, la cifra, el límite entre incorporación e introyección, el duelo imposible, así como un trazado de la operación del analista como poeta-traductor. “Fors” –fueros, salvo, excepto–, resta intraducible, indigerible, como marca una tópica fuera de sí. Deja la tarea de la traducción sin aforo, fuera de quicio, desaforada en una experiencia sin reserva ni fuero interno, infiel, desmedida, autoinmune, como un trabajo que no puede sino perder sus fueros, sus exenciones, sus privilegios. No estamos sino desaforados en traducción. Nuestra estancia en la transposición de la lengua: el desafuero. (shrink)

The photographic apparatus whose emergence is located in the mid-nineteenth century has not been perfectly located within the history of technology, sometimes considered as a simple tool or instrument whose utility was mainly in the field of scientific research, other times giving it the status of machine, accentuating this time the automatism of its operation. Both visions seem insufficient to us since both one and the other present a certain partiality in the understanding of the apparatus, which should not be (...) reduced to its mere optical character or to its automatism, since this is also a form of recording, of memory. Our interest will focus on demonstrating how photography should be thought of as “apparatus”, that is, as a complex element within the history of technology; that not only was able to perfect our vision considered as deficient, but at the same time was able to grant a new temporality and a specific type of perception to an entire era. (shrink)

The photographic apparatus whose emergence is located in the mid-nineteenth century has not been perfectly located within the history of technology, sometimes considered as a simple tool or instrument whose utility was mainly in the field of scientific research, other times giving it the status of machine, accentuating this time the automatism of its operation. Both visions seem insufficient to us since both one and the other present a certain partiality in the understanding of the apparatus, which should not be (...) reduced to its mere optical character or to its automatism, since this is also a form of recording, of memory. Our interest will focus on demonstrating how photography should be thought of as “apparatus”, that is, as a complex element within the history of technology; that not only was able to perfect our vision considered as deficient, but at the same time was able to grant a new temporality and a specific type of perception to an entire era. (shrink)