Event Combination

Click on the top image to jump

The author "empty" translated an article and delivered it to the [EPS Psychoanalytic Society] for a fee, which was rejected by the Editorial Committee, which provided the author with two reasons for rejecting the draft, placing importance on this refusal and making some rebuttals to article 1 of the Committee's reasons for rejecting it.

I. Double standards of the Editorial Committee - is misreading a reason for rejection?

The first of the reasons for the refusal was: "In the case of hysteria, `the anxiety may not be accompanied by transformational symptoms'. First of all, there is an erroneous reading of psychoanalytic theory; secondly, the current psychiatric and psychiatric studies classify `diarrhea' as `transformative disorder', i.e., the transformational symptoms, to a large extent, constitute an important diagnostic criterion for the disease today."

In the original version, "this anxiety may not be accompanied by transformational symptoms", the Committee considers this to be a "misread" of psychoanalytic theory. However, we cannot help but ask why the DSM diagnostic criteria should be used to evaluate "sickness" rather than the classic taxonomy approach. If classic taxonomy is not adopted, is the Editorial Committee the wrong reader of psychoanalytic theory? Is a certain school really a psychoanalytic school, or is it just a subjugation to foreigners who write DSM standards? In this case, is it still psychoanalytic? The reasons for the refusal of the Editorial Committee, the double standards of the censorship mechanism and the theoretical differences between DSM and classic taxonomy will be discussed in detail.

(i) "Irregular reading" is not a ground for refusal

In the first place, the author considers that "misreading" cannot be used as a reason for refusing the article and that the Committee's judgement on "misreading" in the article itself is problematic. We know that transformational symptoms are the term used in the DSM diagnostic criteria and are different from the classic psychoanalytic language. With regard to diarrhea, there is no apparent error in the phrase "this anxiety may not be accompanied by transformational symptoms", which uses the word "possible" and which is detailed in the article. That could not be fully interpreted as a misreading of the psychoanalytic theory and should not be used as a justification for rejection. It may be more appropriate to say that there was an error in reading the DSM diagnostic criteria. On the contrary, according to the criteria set by the Editorial Committee, they may themselves be misreading.

Second, there are many questions about the possible question of "this anxiety may not be accompanied by transformational symptoms" as a "misread" of the psychoanalysis, as well as about the "misread" proposed here and the reasons for its withdrawal. If the defence and argument of the proposition is based on a general rule based on empirical realities and logical, and its conclusions can be somewhat predictive and interpretive, and if, in turn, the XX school is to question the process, it needs to be pointed out that, in the context of a genuine interpretation of the original text, the observed phenomena are clearly contrary to the direction foreseen by the proposition and, secondly, that the defence of the proposition is not only empirical but logical. This can be used to determine the meaning of the misreading, i.e. the misreading. However, it is hard to believe that the XX school did not provide any of the above-mentioned rebuttals. Yet another way of interpreting misreading is for the XX school to establish a so-called "text interpretation path" (i.e. the DSM diagnostic criteria for judging what the rejected article calls "misreading"), but the XX school's so-called "text interpretation path" is already problematic. The first is that because the editorial committee XX has set "standard standards" for the examination of articles, the so-called "text interpretation path" does not appear convincing, and I will analyse in detail the "standard standards" set by the editorial committee XX below. Second: The public domain of the XX school only relates to the process for the examination of articles and does not effectively publicize the system for the examination of articles. This raises doubts as to whether the Editorial Committee has in fact established objective and rigorous auditing criteria and whether the publication of the articles is based on the subjective assumptions of the auditors of the Editorial Committee. Or is everything settled?

Comment

[1]. (See EPS Society for Psychoanalyticals Micro-Intelligence Public article: Comments on Part of the Original Articles of the First Academic Journal, 2021).

Lastly, the translated article itself represented only the author ' s own point of view, and why should it not be possible to add a comment to the statement of the author ' s position and opt out? We can see that an earlier school article, " Structures in Practice: A differentiated diagnosis based on Jacques Lacan's teaching (hereinafter referred to as the Distinctive Diagnosis) was published with the addition of the author's position statement. Further, we find double standards in the editorial committee's review and approval mechanism for the publication of articles.

(ii) The double standard established by the Editorial Committee

We should reveal the "double standards" set by the XX school editorial board in its approach to the two diagnostic criteria of DSM and "structured" and criticize such an audit system. In the view of the author, under the double standards of the Committee, it would be pointless to talk about misinterpretation. An article published by the XX school in 2021, The Practice of Structure: According to Jacques Lacan's differentiated diagnosis of teaching, the author of the article gave full recognition to "structured" [2] as the main clinical diagnostic method for psychoanalysis by comparing the two diagnostic criteria of DSM and "structured" and supplementing her views with the comments of many relevant scholars. The author quotes some of the original arguments: "1. Deleuze: The clinical aspect of psychoanalysis is neither descriptive nor phenomenonological, but structural... The structure is not a theoretical model, but an original machine, which presents the subject of experience. In Lacan's view, the practice of psychoanalysts should be "equivalent to structure" 3. Lacan, based on linguistics and structural anthropology, gives the concept of structure a special character, which makes it different from other ideas, and it is precisely this that allows him to distinguish the clinical aspects of psychoanalysis from other therapeutic practices." [3]

Comment

[2]. Structured clinical diagnostic methods, i.e. the use of "clinical structures" as a criterion for the diagnosis of visitors. Concepts such as "clinical structure" and "structure" are also proposed by Lacan psychoanalysis based on linguistic and structural anthropology. "According to Lacan, neurosis, mental illness and error are clinical structures. Each structure has a number of inherent defensive and organizational mechanisms: neuropsychiatric depression, disempowerment of mental illness, denial of error. (See Note [32] to Distinctive Diagnosis)

[3]. Specific reference to the school article " Structure in practice: Note [2], [3] according to Jacques Lacan ' s differentiated diagnosis of teaching, and the original article.

In the above-mentioned view, the author cites a great deal of discussion to justify "structured" as a clinical diagnostic standard for psychoanalysis, while the Editorial Board misread the psychoanalytic theory on the grounds that "the anxiety may not be accompanied by transformational symptoms", i.e., that the article was rejected on the grounds that the opinion did not meet the DSM diagnostic criteria for the publication of the article "The growing type of anxiety in a nervous and psychiatric condition" (hereinafter referred to as "the anxiety type"). However, the article, Distinctive Diagnosis, stated in an explanatory note: "The content of the article represents the position of the author alone!" to relieve the author of the position of the Distinctive Diagnosis, making it easy to publish it. On the contrary, the article "Types of anxiety" does not have the public authority to publish the same "standards of review by the Editorial Committee". In conclusion, the editorial board had set a double standard on the review mechanism for articles, the Distinctive Diagnostics had emphasized the soundness of the structured diagnostic criteria, and the article had also been published in public, while The Type of Anxiety had been rejected by the editorial board under the unified standard, which considered that the psychoanalytic theory had been "misreaded" and had not been accompanied by a statement of position.

(iii) Classic taxonomy or DSM classification Learn.

The difference between DSM and classic taxonomy[4] is explored at the level of thesis in the article Distinctive Diagnosis, where the shortcomings of DSM taxonomy are reasonably revealed. [5] However, the Editorial Committee refers to "the present-day psychiatric and psychiatric studies classify `conversional disorders' as `transformative disorders', i.e., transformational symptoms, which have become, to a large extent, an important diagnostic criterion for epidemiology today". The rejection of the publication of the " type of anxiety " seems very unreasonable. On the one hand, the editorial board allowed the publication of the Distinctive Diagnostics to reveal the shortcomings of the DSM clinical diagnostic criteria, and on the other hand, the publication of the articles to present the advantages of the classic taxonomy "structured" diagnostic methods; on the other hand, the editorial board did not allow the publication of the "types of anxiety" with the classic taxonomy "structured" diagnostic methods and the interpretation of the concept of "single disease" in the articles as criteria for the DSM clinical diagnosis. Here we can see that the double standards established by the Editorial Committee are quite impressive. The double standards of the Editorial Committee have been discussed in detail above, and the differences between the two classifications will be discussed below in the light of the Distinctive Diagnosis in relation to the individual perspective.

Comment

[4]. Taxonomy, in the context of psychoanalytic analysis, is considered by authors to be a method of categorizing the existence. Such a taxonomy could initially trace the origin of the theory from the classification of "existence" by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. A similar view of the classification of "existence" was also mentioned at Lacan: "What's a diagnosis?" Well, some have already spoken of it. Ron, I was told that you made some observations on this issue last night, which seems to me interesting. I think the diagnosis you've made is an analogy, and by reference to the categories that exist in taxonomy, you've said the word...................................................................................................................

[5]. See the school article, Distinctive Diagnosis, note [35] and the original text.

According to the authors of Distinctive Diagnostics: "There are fundamental differences between DSM and classical taxonomy from the point of view of perception. The former is based on the principles of classification of the natural sciences of the Enlightenment era... It is based only on direct observation of obstacles, and there is no analysis of external scenarios, causes, origin and development of obstacles." It is also considered that the importance of the concept of "subject" should be taken into account in the diagnosis of psychoanalysis: "It is important, before establishing a diagnosis, to consider the origin of the problem, in particular that we be aware of its function vis-à-vis the subject, which varies according to the structure to which it belongs...". [7] The seminar text in Lacan, mentioned in conjunction with the paragraph in the article, and Aristotle give great importance to "existence", as does the original author of the Distinctive Diagnosis, who emphasized the function of the subject and the existence of the subject. On the other hand, DSM's diagnostic methodology is based only on direct observation of obstacles, ignoring the analysis of the external context of the subject, the causes, the origin of the obstacle, and the development of the subject. "It ignores the conflict dynamics of the subject, which remain in the simple classification of conduct." Following this, the Distinctive Diagnosis article also describes the case of Structural Diagnostics and Symptoms to illustrate the advantages of structural orientation in analysing individual cases and gives due weight to the history of "subjects".

Comment

[6]. Structural Practice: Distinctive Diagnosis Based on the Teaching of Jacques Lacan, School Public No., note [35].

[7]. Ibid., note [34] before location.

[8]. Ibid., note [36] after position.

As can be seen from the many views expressed by the authors of the Distinctive Diagnosis above, the key to the difference between DSM and classical taxonomy is whether adequate attention is given to "subjects". When subjects are present as such, attention must be paid to exploring their own meaning. In the course of the development of many theoretical practices in the psychoanalytic analysis of Lacan, the study of clinical cases and the development of psychoanalytic theories are centred on the subject. The neglect of the origin of the "subject" and the development spectrum can be said to be a serious castration of the psychoanalytic theory of Lacan. In sum, while DSM values the diagnosis of symptoms and the direct observation of obstacles, which can be said to promote progressive theory, the same is true for embroiling the psychoanalytic theory of Lacan; it is easy to see that behind this theoretical conflict is actually an ideological contest. On the basis of the theory that the Lacanian psychoanalysis is traditional, is it the choice between believing in native French or choosing Americans? What path should be taken to refine China's future?

II. Analysis of the reasons for the refusal of a committee

We have examined the history of the "diagnostic criteria" with considerable lengths before, and now the author better understands the mechanisms for the operation of the language of the XX school by conducting a verbal analysis of the original version of the Committee's "grounds for rejection" and by trying to reveal the truth behind them.

First, an analysis and complementary note was made on the mechanism for reviewing the Committee ' s articles. It is not difficult to find that in the system for the presentation of articles in the XX school, the XX school did not describe any of the mechanisms for the review of articles by the internal editorial committee of the XX school and did not see any effective publicity. A description of the manner and process of submission is provided only. [9]. This casts doubt on the fact that the editorial board reviews the content of the articles in a subjective manner to decide whether or not to publish the articles. For what the author is going to do, it is difficult to grasp in an objective manner the entire language system represented by the editorial board of the XX school, so the following is focused on the face of the language system of the XX school.

Comment

[9]. Reference may be made to the Opinions on Part of the Original Articles of the First Academic Journal, School Public No. 2021.

(i) Theoretical conversion strategy

As we can see from the reasons for the Board's refusal, the Board is more in agreement with the "scientific" version of the concept of "transformative barriers",[10] instead of the term "disorder". What is really at stake here is the shift between the XX school approach to the "structured diagnosis-DSM" theory. An example of a theoretical shift in the speech system is given here: during the YQ period in previous years, all must strictly observe the relevant protective measures. Such measures are being implemented from higher to lower levels and the related measures of protection are strictly enforced. With the introduction of the "release" measures, all of these strict requirements were removed immediately, the functions concerned were redirected and the corresponding staff were transferred behind closed doors within the system of authority. Just as the resident council would have managed the isolation measures, it would have been moved to other resident councils after liberalization. The strategy of the relevant scientific theory adopted within the language system has been transformed accordingly, and the financial flow of nucleic acid detection agencies has been quickly revealed and severely punished during the exceptional period of liberalization, with some prior estimates of acquiescence.

Comment

[10]. "Transitional barriers" are classified as a "demolition and identity problem" in DSM-5.

Turning to the subject, we also found a change in the editorial committee ' s attitude to diagnostic criteria in a comparative analysis of the reasons for refusing to write the article " Type of anxiety " and the article " Differential diagnosis ". The change in attitude towards the two different diagnostic criteria and the introduction and abolition of theory can be attributed to a theoretical choice adopted within the XX school, rather than a set of theories that correspond to a fixed system of speech. In the linguistic system, the choice and abolition of theory by strategy is just as the school executive committee uses psychoanalyst theorists as pawns.

(ii) Who is speaking?

Who's talking? Are the auditors of the Editorial Committee speaking on their own behalf? No, they're just replacing the undiscovered and invisible linguist behind them. An analogy is made with Foucault's analysis of the medical linguistic system: "The medical jargon cannot be derived from anyone; its value, efficacy, the institution itself and its existence generally as a medical jargon are inextricably linked to this role, defined in accordance with the regulations, which has the right to express, while at the same time demanding for the medical jargon a certain right to eliminate pain and death." In this sense, it is unlikely that the language of the Editorial Committee will come from themselves, and what is behind it is an undisclosed system of words. The editorial board is in fact a theoretical reviewer of the language system in the XX school, and the review mechanism is still established by the operating mechanisms within the language system. In the operations of strategic choice within some systems, certain non-scientific words that do not fit within the organization are excluded, while more "scientific" discourses are incorporated. We can compare Foucault's analysis of the transformation of the 18th century architecture: given the system of formation of objects that dominated the 18th century, some statements were rejected, others were included; and, given the different positions that the subject of the speech could occupy, some coexistence was excluded, while others were possible or needed. Thus, the layers are not free from each other, and they do not appear to be based on unlimited autonomy: there is a hierarchy of relationships from the primary level of the object to the formation of the discourse strategy. [12] We can see the rhetorical strategy and the division of objects behind which the hierarchy of relationships is hidden and not revealed.

Comment

[11] Foucault: The Archaeology of Knowledge, Antenna, 2021, P62.

[12]. Ibid., p. 89.

(iii) Words and objects

As Foucault's study of the history of madness shows, "psychiatry objects" are first created from within the speech system, thus integrating "unusual people" into this audience. The invention of the concepts of "prosthesis" and "transformative symptoms" is also an invention of "psychiatry objects"; in any case, as a "presentation object" by Foco, there is no regard whatsoever for the reality and authenticity of "matters". And there is no difference between a madman and a normal person, but at the level of words, which Foucault described as spoiled.

The word "means" is intended to kill "matter" and ultimately "real matter" is replaced by "the object of the speech". The shift in the notion of the term "psychiatric object" is simply an indication of the holistic nature of the speech system. The point is not to describe the subject in terms of the terminological nature of the subject, but to use words to cover it; the point is to experience the real person by feeling, that is, to reach the "matter". In the clinical work of psychoanalysis, we would like to focus on the authenticity of the visitor's very existence as a subject and to communicate with visitors with a sense of truth. "The word is not life: its time is not your time; in it you will not reconcile with death; and it is quite possible that you will kill God under the pressure of what you say; but do not think that you will create a man who lives longer than God with what you say." That is to say, Fukko downplays "talks" as a way for humans to continue their lives, whether the concepts of "sickness" or "transformative symptoms", and the linguistic theory behind them, as they develop over time, will flood history. Words don't seem so important.

Comment

[13] Foucault: The Archaeology of Knowledge, Antananarivo, 2021, P247.

As can be seen from the previous analysis, the good or bad of talking about the use of the term "conversional symptoms" or "transformative symptoms" is essentially a competition at the intellectual-power level. On the one hand, we should focus on the experience of real "matters", on the subject itself and on ourselves. On the other hand, we should also look at the truth that reveals the essence behind the change of words. Fukko whispers his curse under his sleeping grave: words will always pass over over time, promoting the theory of psychoanalytic development with so-called seemingly immutable "words" that do not make it possible for a psychoanalytic school to live longer than God.

References

[1] Silvia Lippi: Structured Practice: Distinctive Diagnosis Based on the Teaching of Jacob Lacan, U Zhang Jin, EPS Psychoanalytic Community Micro-Intelligence Public No. 2021.

[2] Carmen Gallano, " The growing type of anxiety in neurosis and mental illness ", empty translation, P4 Theater and you Micro-Public, 2023.

Editor

Abu's article is extremely powerful! He did not hesitate to untangle the veil of those who pretended to sell power. China's psychoanalytic enterprise must not be occupied by these double-standards, who sell dog meat under the banner of Lakang, but must be alive, courageous, free, extremely creative, mobile, self-organized.

Welcome to our own group of psychoanalytic cartels, Abu, and let us continue to collide with more powerful, first-hand articles in the future, to use our actions to reveal that invisible truth and to light up hope.