11:00am – Jan. 26, 2013 at Euclid.

    The first course of the Winter semester – Explaining Neurosis-Psychosis in a theory of knots begins. Though the course does no presuppose any previous material, it does assume the participant will take the time to review the previous Fall semester and the readings. An outline-summary of the course can be found at:


    under the category: 2012-13 Fall Winter Semester. New participants will need to use the enrollment key to enter.

    The previous semester we read Freud's analysis of Jensen's Gradiva and distinguished his early psychotherapeutic method as it is pursued here with this later, properly analytic method, as it began to come out in the Metapsychological Papers and the later writings (Constructions in Analysis, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Etc.)

    The course provides the context for a return to the Metapsychological Papers of Freud, while reading them with the topology of Lacan in the second semester. The participant should, therefore, either have begun reading or read the following works:

    1) The Unconscious

    2) Repression: (Primary Repression/Repression/Foreclosure)

    3) Narcissism: (Primary/Premier/Secondary)

    We have also worked to distinguish both Neurosis and Psychosis in the manner of Freud in distinguishing, respectively, Repression (Verdrängung) from Foreclosure (Verwerfung); and Trauma from Persecution of the Super Ego.

    It will be important to bring these terms together and show how they work, not simply with regard to clinical cases and literary examples, but through a constructive topology. At least, this will be the aim of the second semester: to reveal the underlying structure that these terms denote and how topology is an introduction to such strucutres.

    In order to bring out this constructive and experimental approach, we also made the difference between a theory of the tableau and a theory of painting in order to situate how Lacan develops repression not in the Freudian sense of analysis of Ropp's Temptation of St. Athony, but in the sense of the reworking of Corbet's Origin of the World by A. Masson.

    The first course of the second semester will review this material, while bringing it into a properly topological interrogation within a theory of knots and links.

    Those present at the first semester are invited to explain what they are not following and/or give a presentation of what they did.

    Participants are also invited to present any material that they find relevant to the current material.


  • Real French Course– Goal: to learn the French language in a context conducive to the acquisition of a high level of reading, writing, and speaking skills. Class is taught in small groups of four focusing on the language of the humanities, sciences, and everyday use. Special concentration on the terminology of psychoanalysis and the linguistics theory of Saussure, Jakobson, Benveniste, and Milner.

    Begins: Second Week of Oct. (Specific dates to be announced) - ends in December.
    Duration: 1.5 hours
    Frequency: once per week
    Place: (to be decided by participants)
    Instructor: Moana A.
  • Course builds on the Fall 2011 Semester – Formalization of Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit – to encompass a construction of Marx's Capital in the schemas of Lacan.
  • Part I - The Phenomenology of the Spirit [Phänomenologie des Geistes] – PHG – first appeared in 1807 under the title System of Science. Here, Knowledge [Wissen/Savoir] or Science [Wissenshaft] has been called a System or Manifold (Mannigfaltigkeit), which has both a topological and philosophical sense. Counter the standard procedures that view the notion of a Manifold philosophically, if not metaphorically, our aim is to read and construct its place topologically, both globally and locally, in a Theory. In proceeding in such a literal way, our aim is both to introduce a Hegelian theory that is not another philosophical commentary on Hegel's philosophy, but first and foremost an isolation of its structure. To conclude, the PHG and Hegel's conception of phantasy are constructed in a topological structure, while showing the correspondence with Lacan's topological project.

    Part II– Reconstructs the intuitive diagrams of Part I in a more adequate topology. Introduces a theory of categories, topoi, and sheaves in the formalization of Hegel's PHG (at last).

    Date and Time: 11:30 Saturday Sept. 10, 2011
    Place: Santa Monica, CA or via distance conference
    Duration: 2 hrs.
    Frequency: Second Saturday of every month
    Instructor: R.T. Groome
    Class structure: Open to general public auditors, guests, adherents, and trustees.

    Announcement: Begin by reading Hegel's preface to PHG. Look over articles and texts included in the virtual classroom and library. Be sure to enroll using the enrollment key after registration.

  • Theory of Symbolism Winter 2011 Semester:

    From Classical Predicate Logic and Set Theory

    To a Topo-logic and a Theory of Categories.

    Time: From 12:00 to 3:00 Saturdays - Begins Jan. 29th / Ends May 28th

    Place: Santa Monica

    Duration of Seminar: 5 weeks

    Frequency: Once per month (Last Saturday of every month).

    Open to those enrolled in the Sclinic, Scholarship Recipients, and Guests (invites from the General Public)

    Our Fall 2010 Seminar began by introducing an analytic theory of the symbol in passing from ATheory of Symbolism in Jone's critique of Jung; we concluded with Lacan's critique of Jones (In Memory of Ernest Jones) such that the reference of a symbol, the phallus in question, is revealed to no longer be a positive object (the penis) in a scientific and biological investigation, but its lack and resistance to such an investigation.

    Lacan's critique and reconstruction of an analytic theory of the symbol is important because it provides the basis for a critique of the post- and neo-freudians, from Klein to Bion, but opens up a path to the contemporary theories of the symbol in logic and mathematics, most particularly in the work of Pierce, Frege, and the modern category theorists. It is the preponderant problem of reading and writing a symbol of lack that situates both an impossibility of Science and a definition of logic as 'a writing of the real'.

    In our Winter 2011 Seminar we will begin where we left off: by introducing a theory of predicate logic and sets; then showing how their paradoxes and reformulation provides the framework for both the contemporary theory of categories and a topo-logic (or theory of topoi). In order to situate 'a writing of the real', the seminar will conclude with an introduction to both the completeness and incompleteness theorems of Gödel.

    Though our seminar is introductory in its scope and open to the debutant, it is not a vulgarization. We will use the introductory text, Language, Proof, and Logic by J. Barwise as a basis from which to pass from a theory of propositions, to predicates, then a theory of sets. By proceeding with the antinomies and paradoxes of such theories, we are led quite naturally to the theory of categories and topoi – which will provide the basis for the Summer 2011 Immersion.

    Those attending would profit from buying the book and reading chapters 1-8 on propositional logic. A CD is included in the purchase price of the book that includes exercises that should be attempted.The seminar will assume to some extent this work in propositional logic has been attempted without necessarily having been achieved. This much said, the actual work of the seminar consists in the chapters 9–19 on predicate logic and set theory.

    Anyone with questions on the form or content of the course is invited to address the secretary at: PLACE@Topoi.net

  • Topology And Psychoanalysis III

    First Seminar: Oct. 2, 30, Nov. 27, Dec.4, 2010
    Time: 1:00-4:00pm
    Place: Santa Monica
    Lecturer: R.T. Groome and Guests
    Secretary Contact: PLACE@topoi.net

    Our seminar continues the tradition first introduced by Lacan of introducing an analytic theory and practice in a topological presentation. The reply to one of the most standard questions – What does topology have to do with psychoanalysis? – is direct: inherently nothing, it is how you assume their conjunction that determines a use. In fact, topology has no more to do with psychoanalysis than algebra has to do with geometry; or a letter has to do with a figure. And it is for this very reason that one must begin to reason not by resemblance – with the use of myth, religion, literature, and neurology – but by difference in asking the question 'What is a structure?". Thus, if Freud left us with scientific myths, Lacan has left us with structural problems that ultimately are constructible in a topology.

    In order to present the progress opened up by the conjunction of topology and psychoanalysis, we propose the participant begin by reading the classic of orthodox psychoanalysis: E. Jones, 'Theory of Symbolism' [1916]. We will then begin our first course [Oct. 2, 2010] by returning to a little read text of Lacan – In Memory of Ernest Jones: On His Theory of Symbolism [1959] – with the topological post-scriptum in 1996 which states:

    "Psychoanalysis has the privilege that symbolism is reduced in it to the truth effect that, whether it is extracted or not from its pathetic forms, it isolates in its knot as the counterpart without which nothing can be conceived by way of knowledge. "Knot" here means the division that the signifier engenders in the subject, and it is a true knot in that it can not be flattened out."

    The claim has been made that Jone's Theory of Symbolism followed by his 1927 "Precocious Development of Feminine Sexuality" and his 1932 "Phallic Phase" sets the framework for modern analytic doctrines from M. Klein's genetic doctrine of fantasy until Lacan deconstructs the tradition in his 1953 "Function and Field". The objective of our first fall semester is to read through these early seminal texts, while constructing out an analytic theory of symbolism, or more precisely, the signifier, in a topology . Our Winter-Spring Semester will search to refine our topological presentation in response to the questions raised in our first semester.

    Required Reading:

    E. Jones: 1- Theory of Symbolism [1916].
    2- Precocious Development of Feminine Sexuality" [1927]
    3- Phallic Phase [1932]

    J. Lacan: 1- Function and Field [1953]
    2- The Signification of the Phallus [1958]
    3- In Memory of Ernest Jones: On His Theory of Symbolism [1959]

    Topological texts and articles will be introduced directly onto the Interface site at: http://www.lacanlosangelespsychoanalysis.com/classes/
  • Topology and Psychoanalysis: The Problem of Presentation

    Starting Date-Ending Date: Saturday, Feb.27, 2010 to May. 30, 2010.
    Time: 12:00 noon on the last Saturday of every month.
    Duration: 2-3 hours
    Place: Santa Monica
    Session/Year: Winter 2010
    Instructor(s): Robert Groome and Guest Speakers
    Course Length: 20 weeks
    Contact Hours: 15 hours
    Texts: Selected texts of Freud and Lacan (precise texts to be announced)
    Course Prerequisites: Application Form/ Interview

    Course Description

    Since Lacan's return to Freud it is no longer possible to assume an analytic practice and theory in the same way. Rather than claiming to go beyond Freud in a neo- or post-Freudian therapy, or rejecting analysis altogether as 'non-science', it is necessary to isolate what analysis comes to bear upon. Yet, what is perilous is to read Freud today speculatively: that is to say, to remain within the transfers of analysis, its commerce, and institutionalization without acknowledging the insufficiency of such a position. For if the motor of analysis is the transfer, this is not to say that being in a transfer guarantees that analysis has effectively taken place. Indeed, one may remain a very long time in an analytic transfer without the least bit of analysis (see Freud's Analysis Terminable and Interminable). What our course and intervention aims to account for is how and why Lacan introduced topology as a way to effectively isolate the taking place of analysis.

    As an initial probe, in proclaiming, "Analysis here" – there is already a crucial difference between an identity and its presentation. This difference is crucial: the difference between the presence of an analytic act and its absence makes room for a fantasy, or more extensively, the fantasy object of analysis. One way to deny the fantasy of analysis and the problem it poses, is to suppose that the theory of analysis is already present in the institute, in the library, and in the mind of the analyst. It is not a question of de-supposing such knowledge – this would be to deny the transfer – but of determining a just mode of working with it. Indeed, should the problem of presentation be taken for granted, then the naive idea that all one need do is apply a psychoanalytic knowledge is met with predictable obstacles. For neither the absence nor the unreality of the fantasy will have effectively been given a place in the construction of a theory. What is perilous in such a detour is that the fantasy of analysis will have been replaced by the idea of analysis: a dis-incarnate Geist or Spirit of Freud that an institute and its disciples propagate as a heritage. Paradoxically, it is precisely in such a 'spiritualization' that one may read psychoanalysis counter Freud in order to assimilate it into being just one more sub-discipline of psychology and psychotherapy – and not as implicating a fantasy and real that is both anti-psychological and beyond a concept of Man. Here one may also read psychoanalysis counter Lacan by claiming him "too intellectual" or "too theoretical", and thus not amenable to the technician's dream of 'applied psychoanalysis'. Yet, to attempt to practice analytic theory at the 'applied' level, is to remain within the transfer – not to construct it – and to adopt the position of ritual: a neutralization and acting out of the fantasy of analysis as both self-knowledge and an access to the secret power of a commercial and educative filation. Within such a 'practical' framework the formation of a psychoanalytic theory, if there still is one, is reduced to a general set of codes and conventions that either works absolutely – in the charm and discourse of a Master – or does not work at all. For in such a discourse, there is no need to introduce the anxiety of a subjective position that the presentation of an analytic theory implies. On the contrary, for a psycho-technician locked in the transfer, the presentation of a theory may be by-passed, or rather theory is only re-presented and read objectively, while the analytic session itself is reduced to the expression of emotions having more to do with acting lessons than the analytic act. The word 'theory' in such cases means nothing more than the philosopher's 'idea' – a dis-incarnate and contemplative idea of theory that does not isolate the fantasy as implying an absence, a body, language, or imaginary necessary to its presentation and practice. By confusing a psychoanalytic theory with a psychoanalytic philosophy, by assimilating the presentation of an analytic theory to a discussion or expression of ideas, the modern day technician can only practice analysis by re-incarnating its 'spirit' in the guise of 'others' – as patients and clients. We will call this dominant idea of analysis an ideology, while adopting the position of Lacan that "what the ideology of psychoanalysis suffers from today is the lack of an adequate topology".

    Our course aims to introduce an adequate topology for the practice of an analytic theory. The extent of the course will cover three main theories: 1) Graphs, 2) Surfaces, and 3) Knots. Although these three theories correspond to periods of the analytic work of Lacan, our emphasis is not of a historical or erudite level. Rather we will show how each of these theories correspond to a psychoanalytic notion, respectively, 1)' Symptom, 2)' Libido-Fantasy, and 3)' Drive. We will supplement the classes with readings from Lacan and Freud.

    Weekly Outline (to follow)

  • Currently this course – its materials and forums – is open to the public.

    Goals And Aims
    – Although our re-orientation is not addressed to any one national or political concern, it may be helpful to use the United States as an example of a more global investigation.

    It is not surprising to view Lacan in the U.S. as a theorist without a practice as this says more about a general ignorance that has shrowded contemporary Lacanian analysis for quite some time now. In order to re-orient this field, it is worthwhile to indicate briefly why this is the case.

    In the U.S. Lacanian analysis was introduced from 1960 to 1980 in the university as literary theory and/or continental philosophy. Afterwards certain 'neo-' and recuperative efforts began to emerge in the late 80’s and 90’s with ‘clinical’ aspirations. This has meant following a careful balancing act of adopting while critiquing the empirical and experimental basis of U.S. psychodynamic therapy, psychology, and psychiatry. The contemporary scene in Lacanian analysis for the last four decades has been locked in this revolving door between speculative Continental Philosophy and compromised forms of Anglo-American Empiricism. Needless to say, if left at this level of debate, the theory and practice of Lacanian analysis does not progress further than the more than a century old opposition between Kant and Hume.

    Without denying a historical transference of styles and fantasy, our introductory course aims to show the door to the theory and practice of Lacanian analysis is not there. Our introduction aims to operate a re-orientation in the field by showing how a school can be founded in the tradition of Freud and Lacan – neither Kant nor Hume – and on the basis of its clinical dimensions in the cartel and non-analyst. In this respect, the course will put to the test the procedures that have been proposed by Lacan to traverse the fantasy and to analyze those transferences so readily put into place by the institutionalization of psychoanalysis.

    Thus, we concentrate our first entry on a reading of the institutional writings of Lacan, most of which have remained untranslated (translations provided in the course) and viewed as secondary ‘bureaucratic’ problems. Our didactic strategy proceeds otherwise by insisting that a formation in psychoanalysis must first and foremost distinguish the analytic act from its institutionalization and the professional being of the analyst. Said otherwise, one must distinguish the desire of the analyst from the desire to be an analyst. Once such a division is made, it then becomes possible to make a progress in the learning of a practice and theory.

    Through the readings and in class discussions each participant will be encouraged to develop a position in theory and practice so that a practice of the place of analysis is no longer assimilated to the cultural and ideological, but the theoretical. See included attachments for texts and further info.

    Introduction by Course Instructor: R. Groome