Prohibition and Transgression as a Depth Psychology-Phenomenological Problem on the Dialectics of Desire

Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) distinguished in his late period from 1960 between the impossibility that the symbolic representation covers the real, and the enjoyment, which only partially submits to such signifiers and therefore a real remainder the “object a” leaves. This object a, distinguished from the imaginary object, represents an unassailable surplus which, on the one hand, appears as the cause of desire and, on the other hand, refers back to the self-concealed presence of the object a as the origin of anxiety. In this way, desire appears enigmatic and solidifies in the phantasm as a partial object, which subjects the subject to the “other” (A) believes to be. The cure consists of traversing this fantasy to give up the original identification; that is to see the tension between the desire for recognition and the claim in the need to see and thereby dissolve. In his work for Lacan, the Freudian unconscious is thus a simultaneous opening and closing, whose pulsation excludes depth and inwardness. Insofar as the subject is divided between the truth of desire and the knowledge about it, this truth only reaches its actual speech when it is understood that “no language can ever speak the truth about the truth”.

Is there in Freud now some progress on the subject insofar as it from time to I under to the reality recognition progress can so, however, the progress o rode thought both Lacan as problematic in a radical phenomenology, albeit for different reasons. If the radical life-self is without postponement and withdrawal, then it is definitive in the transcendental sense, whereby Arche and Telos coincide, which in a corresponding form of therapy corresponds to self-perception as absolute subjectivity. For his part, Lacan rejects the idea that the good or the salvation of man can be achieved through analytic technique, which in this contribution has motivated a special study on prohibition / transgression. For Lacan, the " realization of being" can be understood as the recognition of the "mastery of signitive death" instead of serving as a master over our desire to an imaginary lord (signifier, symbol, otherness) who is always displaced. The analytic-ethical therapy goal in Lacan is therefore neither a knowledge nor a condition, but an access to that "realization of being" under the primacy of death as a path marked by the history of the individual so far, by reinterpreting those parts of this history to the subject to be made available, which were displaced as incompatible with the ideal of the self, to thereby form the previous n integrate enigmatic pages of desire. This knowledge is, however, rather a lack of knowledge, because a defect would recognize disappearance/ which at the same time remaining "gap" between forms his/sense, it provided that the latter erroneously as fixed should think identity. In this respect, there are also generalizations and differences to the phenomenologically founded analysis of existence and existence, since the latter does not seek meaningful conclusion of existence, but only authentic behavior in all environmental references or a new situational sense, which is subject to constant change [2].

Transgression as Technology and Life Movement
This implies already a first indication of Norms n and commandments, for the symbolic legitimating to me were about transferred as a therapist or analyst, remain the evidence of ontological qualifications or sufficient knowledge completely removed, so that any "sense" as an equivalence to a respectable rule or an award by others, it becomes obsolete and the transgression may be indicated, even if it has its symbolic dialectic, as we shall see. However, there are Lacan still such a thing as the "power" of psychoanalysis, s can be achieved so far in the latter a "boundless love" all, also "ethics of Psych as analyze" remains to understand him [3]. For if the originally Liche disappearance (death) through the subject that object was repeated by the analyst himself, whose finding (every phantasm) means the original loss schlechhtin, then boundless love would result in the measure as "on it Object renunciation does". But this is not progress in the moral or other sense, but to emerge from the ego ideal as an imaginary fascination and from the imaginary attachment to the other as an object. For Alfred Adler, this would mean renouncing the fiction of a securable personality image, in the case of Frankl a sapient cordis on this side of all model specifications for the establishment of existence in every situation and relationship. However, remains to the asking of any self-fascination neo-psychoanalytic stepping out of the boundaries, whether this already has those phenomenological Possibility is achieved, which also still picking up the last attempt at self-determination on the "waiver" to a given's of life without further To acknowledge the importance of ours. Lacan approaches this reality by interpreting Freud's technical concept of "working through" not only as the question of the remaining "opaque relation to the origin, to the impulse" through which the "analytical experience has passed", but also as the permanent question after "justice and courage", when all "repetitions" and "deferred, frightening desires" have been named and integrated. This question is perhaps not to solve, because "the contemporary man prefers this search term in e resolve the behavior, adaptation, the group morale or other inanities. Hence the difficulty of the problem posed by the analyst's human education" [4].
Thus, the examination of rotation/transgression proves to be the only question which not only leads analysts, therapists and supervisors out of all apparent certainty of theoretical and group norms, but also the question of epoch in radically phenomenological and depth psychological sense virulent. For the moment, we can say that therapy means a border crossing with an un mistakable individual, and what lies beyond and beyond this limit is certainly the question of transgression par excellence, which can only be deduced reductively if the border itself is a structure of a dimensional (worldliness) is still to be lifted, to let justice do justice to the "truth" of radical subjectivity. For it is not to be overlooked that the Lacanian determination of the subject as disappearance, isolation and alienation just a formal Sprats includes Structure by the induced over the signifiers part sense as acquisition of a self-inflicted loss as a lack fortressed the subject is zt. But how to Understory is, can an original or transcendental birth in life such a lack-of-being as abstract structure determination of the people ultimately did not, so far as the affective contains corporeality as pathic intensity a impressional fullness that also in an existential alienation cannot be lost because the radically individuated subjectivity can never "alienate" itself in this purely phenomenological being. If Lacan refers to Marx as referring to the "mystery" of the transition of a use-value into a (market-bound) exchange-value as an example of the alienating loss, explaining to the patient what takes place in all our forms of exchange through signifiers, he has overlooked that already in every need of a self-affection [5] is given, which just cannot be canceled. "His lack" and "being miss" can use it in analytical-therapeutic conversation are discussed and first make a large part of this process of what is viable just like be there analytical method can be used-operatively. A about the real goal of therapy is likely over such deconstruction of stressful imaginary occupations and self prohibitions consist also, those feet of each are as unique subject reality as constantly given r source or gift of life to try. The latter is more dependent on anything, especially not by a through shared his speaking and alienated and subject, or by his failed relationships with others, as the pure subjectivity first does not make in the experience of imaginary otherness or mirroring, but the unit and identity with the purely intrinsic connected life origin, which also any standards-related T precedes transgression. Because of the "other" can just in a same original ethos same transcendental vibrancy or intensity never made my action to the object to be as implied by the different forms of perversion, because she/ fainting all an unexplained relationship between power include how to masochism and show sadism. But above all, the purely phenomenological "subject" initially not even such an object to which the Lacanian perspective as alienation structure towards tends to in this way "object" of psychoanalysis in a new "scientific" to be what certain about Freud initial determinism in the sense of a biologism of drive and energy suppression. A famous it remains nevertheless also a determinism insofar as the linguistic-structuralism element a hypostasized speed implies that no one knows Outside of himself as a signifier chain, that is even possible other provision of the subject, without having to return to metaphysics. Whether Lacan -as Lévi -Strauss, Foucault, Althusser, etc. at the same time in France -is therefore to be accused of anti-humanism, will not be further discussed here, [6] as for therapeutic as generally live secular society can be said frame, at least, that this form knows the neo-psychoanalysis some potential of freedom that the ego and detach relationship with others and death of an illusory prospect wants to to loosen up the resistance to the "real" in favor of less neurotic or narcissistic-hysterical movements and perhaps to find a universal form of "love" that corresponds to the non-objectively occupied Eros in desire.
Ideally, this self dissolving itself from its level as identifications with others no longer needs a signifier as outer rule, since expectation and inquiry are no longer sought as external confirmation to maintain its illusion of imaginary meaning, usually with connected to an unrecognized "servitude" in the sense of Hegel and Lacan, [7] to want to spare one's life to obtain temporary enjoyment and limited gratification, instead of granting the desire of life itself, to be in one's particular desire. But if the "real" that's what creates the reality without being present in it, because it remains silent in the language based on the difference, then "missing" it is not just, but we would be forever separated them. For Lacan, the confusion of the visible with the real (mirror situation) is the imaginary par excellence, [8] but the Invisible is purely phenomenological not only the antithesis of visible and imaginary reality, but their principal notes reality of which we qua can not be separated subjectivity in the sense of the auto show of life -as we no ontological nothing in terms of a non -appearance s form. The "therapeutic target" may phenomenological, existential how deeply psychologically for these reasons not only be to accept the ontic or empirical or anthropological Limited all reality experience and may vary, but fundamentally necessary reversal of I for me to drive so far that it Presence can be tried out as the self-giving of reality (life), since it always precedes us, which is why we are not ultimately entrusted with the splits and shifts of the ego, the signifiers and commandments. By understanding difference as a condition of man, especially in the sense of shifting a permanent void without ever achieving the unity of the real, Lacan remains caught in the philosophical monism of transcendence, whose dumbness or lack does not become an immanence of living presence which knows its own affective-impressional inner "word" without having to repeat the illusions of desire, law and freedom as misguided objectifications in this self-affective sphere, if through radical passivity the limit of any illusion of autonomy already exists in the depths of subjectivity is being tested [9].
The inaccessible "unconscious" as the original experience of (neo) psychoanalysis is therefore not the last of the reality granted to man, because if it signals only a "lack" to Lacan (dreams, failures, etc.), there is an even older one "Unconscious" of life, which is neither absence nor possession, but constant transcendental birth, which cannot become" self-consciousness "in the face of the" deadly truth "in every" absence" (at least according to the claim of psychoanalysis), but already a cogitate as Pathos is. This requires no prior consciousness after Descartes [10] and thus no longer the hope or expectation to find out about the possible fulfillment of a norm or a commandment to what we would not yet be. Any wounding of self-esteem, its so-called "failures," etc., must first be tried to be lived or remembered as such, and even death as dying is an impressional process that leaves open the question of how we him purely phenomenological (by ever -) can live without not having to take the power of life it until our last sense into yet complete. And this applies to all manifest phenomena of existence and relationship, which is why deficient or differ (n) Style approaches cannot answer this fact ultimately -not even as a mere "trace", but in therapy and supervision as an everyday question again and again. Of course, deep psychological psychology must be pointed to the fragility of supposed wholeness, unjustified self-evident expectations and comforting memories, but the unconscious Rand experiences as each human's "borderline experience" since Freud, who wanted to question the alleged integrity of will, thinking and feeling (in which he followed by the way of romance and Schopenhauer), hypostatize only se border, rather than their already taken place "out" (transgressor) see with too -that is an inviolable Gebung of life as its «self-gift». Therefore, any therapy, analysis, and supervision beyond the functions of life perceived as impaired (depression, impotence, failure, etc.) has to be traced back to the purely phenomenological nature of this life itself, since it does not differ from the critical or deconstructive consideration of such functional boundaries restrict. And a cases failed relationships, which we all the moral, religious or government is to preserve and mandatory provision symbolism in itself, it is a much older proto-relation which each preferentiality simply creates and therefore not only the innermost engine all well understood transgression, that is, to see command and guilt not as the limit e of life and love itself, but to transgress all limitations to the latter.
We are not concerned here with reintroducing the fascination or submission to another (God), since the religious problem in the therapy concerns only the individual [11]. A over it nevertheless raises the question whether the infinite effort to uncover the (neo) psychoanalysis, the self-illusions to the aforementioned limit of love and life, not something should gain more ease than immediate certainty, if, contrary to the epistemological and methodological premises of difference and transcendence or signifier and discourse, one could become attuned to a purely phenomenological immanence from which no living thing has ever fallen out -neither neurotics, psychotics, hysterics or perverts contribute to the old psychiatric classifications continue to use all the questions and overlaps today [12]. Looking beyond Lacan's ethical self-limitation of psychoanalysis, one may wonder whether his formulation, "speaks the truth", [13] not yet more intended as only the lack of unity and wholeness in the form of permanent displacement de s desire? If so, the boundary experience aforementioned namely but a universal knowledge claim respect to the invisible per se and do not imply the bodies to be real, then Lacan led over at least the neo psychoanalytic itself bounded field of experience addition, to indicate that limit is not identical to (scientific or objective) Certainty must be in whose room Freud just wanted to move. There is namely somehow a connection between the real and the truth, which negatively manifests itself in the unconscious or absence of the subject according to Lacan, then the face of such is at least indirectly postulated universality hypostatization the language tends to be null and void in so far as a voltage results which might not psychoanalytically abolished, but at least must be reflected -if only in the interest of a therapy for people who are themselves in this tension and suffer from it. In other words, this requires stepping out of one's neo-psychoanalytic frame of reference to meet the demand for constant annulment of occupied and deferred desire, beyond that limit which is merely a limit to transcendental thought and analytic practice, but not de s pure phenomenological life s as such. Transgression is thus inscribed in the therapeutic process and its meta-reflection itself, which is why our contribution advocates a plurality and integration of phenomenology, depth psychology, and existence or analysis of existence [14].
Of course, the differences and overlaps should not be blurred, but the patient is not confronted with any system, but with a subjective experience of his desires, which necessarily precedes all therapeutic theorisations. Therefore, if the (neo-) analyst should pay attention, especially in the speech of the patient, to the utterance of the absence as a questioning of the ego to interrupt the usual speech, which is based on satisfaction by the (apparently knowing) other, [15] then much greater attention is paid to the not-lost purely subjective life in such a lack of self-disclosure, what we qualify as the "double hearing". It is the analytic-therapeutically accompaniment of a speech which is in search of a self-indifferent truth which is no longer in need of external acknowledgment (to avoid a lack of desire in mutual therapeutic reliance, which would be a new offense). And there is the other, but this desire as a self selbstaffektiv already met to see. For only in this way can the illusion of a satisfying object, to which the therapist unintentionally continues to feed by his questions and remarks, be lifted, since an imminent certainty separated from "having" and "knowledge" is not "nothing" but just that Reality (the "real") to be able to carry out the mentioned reduction and transgression between self/me at all. In this sense, the instinct (Eros, Narcissism, Displacement and Repression) not only deceives it's never satisfying object, which therefore necessarily recurs as a request in the unconscious, but also harbors the originality of the power of life to endure this process. Lacan seems to intend this purely subjective force, which is neither biologist nor vitality or genetic "instinct", but a purely phenomenological governess of life as its immanent self-motion, when he demands that the analyst should never be able to "work through" One can understand Lacan's disagreement with what is said as speaking reduced to needs, and the invocation to the analyst as indications of an invisible and unnamable radical phenomenological life, in the place of which there are no therapeutic offerings of an imaginary substitution as a falsified meaning, Deshalb remains to prevent by the temporal or other constitutive form of the setting the believed seizure would any final truth about the patient to release rather in the continued work of his unconscious, including "Inter puncturing" as "scansion" of the therapeutic process variable period should serve [16]. Hence the deceptions and illusions refers to both the patient and the therapist/analyst who from all Prestige pictures of his ego and his power to loss has en to even the moving him original "missing" and whose "To work through" not for a meanwhile established "Wissen" in turn spend. To offer the patient the possibility of recognizing the "real" in the absence of communicated desire on the way of removing corresponding ideas, there must accordingly be a connection which can neither be the authority of the theory nor of the person, but only a silent reason that carries the therapeutic process as communal or proto-relational life. This "relationship" is not only the condition of (neo-) psychoanalytic access to the "real" as an open possibility of therapy, but such a relationship must already exist immanently in a given inter-subjectivity, so that the access to the real is deeper than always already existing access "to live" proves. Thus, a transgression of a fundamental nature is indicated, in that neither the therapeutic relationship nor the marginal experience of "absence" or "death" prove to be a limitation for this life itself, since otherwise, despite all analytical technique, an imaginary barrier would be maintained Le b en does not correspond in its self-communication, because the immanent sphere of life does not form an eye-static dimensional with any horizon or intentional boundaries. In short, the "real" can be used as a living reality not ultimately infinitesimal approximation subject, just as life and no progress or Rückschritt subject -and only in this unm ittelbar selbstaffektiven certainty is to manifest can [17].

Prohibition and Law as the Ratio of Limit
Come now patient and analyst/therapist to the same destination or remains when the subject in Lacanian theory is not an open question come to the recognition of his absence (death)? For the patients can not all become analysts themselves to live positively in the recognition of their absence in constant "working through" that is to live in freedom that "gift" which is life in a naive or radically phenomenological sense, without taking over a newly restored imaginary function. If the psychology of depth leads from Freud to Lacan and beyond to this "emptiness" of life, freed from all deceptions, then it remains precisely as the "fullness" of desire itself, which we call its pure immanence in the sense of pathological physicality or narratives [18] because otherwise the analytic-therapeutic technique will only transfer the found "absence" of the subject into an infinite self-regression of further "working through" without doing the leap into the demonstrated positive freedom. D as is, the transgression to perform par excellence, namely the pursuit of life of any make conditions any idea more dependent -even if it is to have the (neo-) psychoanalytic suspicion towards him, not yet dispelled the last illusion. In this respect, we can anticipate that not only the transgression of norms and commandments can represent a subjective or "inner necessity" (as Kandinsky claimed for his abstract painting), but the ultimate transgression concerns the behind-the-scenes Leaving any image pretending to be or mediate life. Because the "death" in the sense of Lacan [19] is not only a submission to the "non-sense" represent, but the departure of any importance, be it sense or non-sense. May be ever therapy/analysis like to go only up to this point that over the biography as disappointed "context of meaning" no past, present or future truth and identity can be achieved for the subject in the temporal sense. But just such a "non-sense" would then require another "submission" than Lacan, namely, to prove that in principle no kind of "submission" in the Sinn dimension is due, because we always already without any withdrawal and delay -without "absence" -affected by life itself, that is to say "accepted", without possessing an imaginative certainty of it, except in a pure feeling as a feeling of being in the purely subjective life.
In it, desire can be realized, that is, without signifiers of an object as a possible good, unless this desire is the fulfillment of that life in its self-advocacy as such. Then a radically subjective life takes place as the proposed transgression of all worldly-offering finalities, including those which can promise therapy/analysis superficially or with ultimate claim, provided that in the broadest sense an illusion-free self-enlightenment is intended, which is the "impossibility of the real "Should be recognizable in the context of speaking as the unconscious. Insofar as this insight remains linked to the category of otherness or difference, this is only a logical possibility, which must not be hypostatized since, in spite of this "impossibility", life giving itself continues to grow in us -hence is the life founded on us, which represents an ontological reality that is older than all missed "real" in terms of reflexively or analytically diagnosed "impossibility". To see this phenomenological-ontological necessity as a "gift" is likely to be the decisive step beyond (neo-) psychoanalysis without misjudging the difficulties of this concept of the gift [20]. But it cannot be denied that in the practice of therapy patients can do this step or step in the end for their own life in everyday life. D as its own (empty) Talk alone can however probably hardly enter his truth, for such Arrive retains the structure of deferral as infinite horizon reference in itself. However, it remains to be experienced that life itself has already "arrived" in us -as unique as ever as our irreducible individuation. After all, it is not a matter of grasping a final logical or existential contradiction between meaning / nonsense and living courageously in the "openness" of this contradiction, as a possible conversation between Simone Weil and Lacan about the "emptiness" of desire can show [21] but about the Unerhörbarke it the request in desiring request (demand) to hear life than that silence beyond which itself is his wealth. In such silence, experiences of powerlessness of speaking and all knowledge -also with others (A ) -come together, as well as those of being as an impossible having as the reflexive ego as a disseminating center of meaning for all appearance. In this radical Possibility implied silence is then neither one nor En-isolated sense of a concrete physical nature s of the subject, but just a pure proto-relation in life without imaginable Relate, and it is there that the "transgression" in Concerning seemingly fixed things, situations, relationships and meanings, they lend their ever renewed dynamic relationality, that is to say without being fixated on an object, spoken or isolated desires [22].
In this sense, we Leave Raging say that the real, infinite as actual transgression has always taken place, namely as the Ankünftigwerden the absolute phenomenological life's a physical incarnation which we as flesh and desire, so that mea /desire as forming intensity that transgression, which is of even as therapeutic immediate problem antic in terms of individual, social and moral (religious) normatively as bans and applies and instructions to understand. To clarify the Lacanian understanding in this regard, it should be remembered that the subject in his movement is divided into pleasure (jouissance), because following Hegel's doctrine of the law such enjoyment of a division with others as well as reason is inaccessible, while the desire of the mutual recognition of two awareness implies s or beyond, that is a general law or "objectification" back is aligned. In this sense, the desire as a fundamental r including the expectation (s) of the interpreted others with Lacan, [23] even though this reciprocity maintains an irreducible difference in that my desire can never coincide with the desire of the other in the imaginary and symbolic realm of reality. This shows that desire has a fundamental relation to the law, whereby the boundless and unmediated are domesticated in a certain respect, which also largely corresponds to the Freudian conception. Legally, it is true that I can only claim something completely for my enjoyment if I hold at the same time the legal conditions for the possession of the corresponding object, which implies that the others have the same right to profit in one contractually agreed period.
This raises for our therapeutic context here the question of how far my enjoyment reaches at all, for if the other belongs incontrovertibly to my desire, as we have seen, then this always includes a limitation of my enjoyment by enjoying the other (A) -and vice versa. If we add that doing both with a language l as submission as release occurs of desire of the other, so will also subjectivisation as objectification my request instead; in other words, there is a tension between the phantasm of a fusion with the other and the restriction of my desire, if it wants to be an infinite enjoyment. This makes it clear why Lacan, in principle, formulates that "transgression is necessary to gain access to enjoyment," and therefore (as in a dream) represent the "navel of desire," namely, to be both separation and connection about the other. The immediate implications with eroticism, ethics, and religion are more than evident here, and were already elaborated by Lacoran Georges Bataille (1897-1962), as well as references to the life phenomenology of Henry can be recognized. For if we have already cited the "transgression of life" in this article as a purely immanent movement of it without withdrawal and limitation, then the further clarification of the transgression revolves around the point, if not every enjoyment is "enjoying oneself" (auto-jouissance ) of radical phenomenological life. Also seen therapeutically then enjoying wool contained no excess as hubris as with the Greeks, or a total loss of self through a wealth of Enjoy's in keeping with the "disappearance" of the subject in Lacan, but a proto-relatedness of an undivided Living by his immediate self-giving in every moment, without having to deny a "nothingness" of the object about the satisfaction of enjoyment.
Insofar as desire, according to Lacan, moves as a chain of metonyms within objects to be enjoyed, it does not obstruct the pleasure principle in principle, but adapts to the law in the broadest sense, while enjoying itself would require a release from this horizontal level of meaning. However, this implies a break, a leap into the impossible, which marks the transgression; but we also know that there is also an e are original void for any gratification of desire because metonymy mentioned the subject in as symbolized at being so already turns up the question of the phallus the constant lack here is whether an absolute transgression at all is possible. This phallus is the symbolic loss of the subject's lost being through submission to the signifier's law (difference), so that ultimately enjoyment always means an absence, because by submission to the language both enjoyment and non-gratification as castration are constantly continuing. Especially Bataille had already pointed out for the connection of enjoyment/lack by the other as a basic trauma, that the enjoyment is therefore basically more of a "death instinct" as a pleasure principle. In the final analysis, this means especially for the transgression, which in particular carries with it (for instance in the incest wish) the death or betrayal of the other. For example, the son must reject the love of his mother or kill his desire, which also applies to incestuous relationships between father/daughter or siblings or in structurally neurotic constellations.
In terms of eroticism, where the desire for transgression is certainly the most given (apart from criminal and warlike violence), the issue here is either to be completely consumed by a love (transgression) or one To counter such merger, thus to live a certain no towards the other, which includes a limited no as a "betrayal" to the partner. On this side of the transgression, only an "impure desire" would always be realized, since the transgression of the utmost desire formed the delivery of the subject to a "pure desire," which would no longer be limited by an endlessly repeating phantasm in the choice of object. But effectively carried out as an act which goes beyond any law as about the love of Antigone to her slain shows brother until his death inside. But a desire that leads to such a death (as well as in suicide) is a passion that lacks heterogeneity about the other and therefore the fundamental question of the ethical relevance of desire towards the other -or from this -when it occurs in a mutual transgressive empowerment. In this sense, the neo-psychoanalytic conception of transgression in Lacan no real transgression of the prohibition, but the demonstration of the return of the latter under the form of a "short and stifled satisfaction," which cannot do without the difference to the law (phallus).
Therapeutically, it should be signaled that although it is necessary to clarify with the patient which norms, rules and prohibitions (neurotic) prevent enjoyment to bring desire and meaning together again in a subjective existence. But at the same time, absolute claims to transgression are a problem that could completely obscure the fundamental traumatization with an imaginary phantasm, to obscure the primordial relationality of the subject to an enabling reason of enjoyment as life, since the latter cannot be the object of transgression but first and foremost reception as passableness, which excludes transgressive violence against every living being. Light on this radical phenomenological as therapeutic constellation raises here also the question of perversion, because the pervert tries between law and enjoying a correspondence produce by his desire to no longer care about what is prohibited, but its barrier picking up to a free enjoy themselves to enable. But at the same time he adheres to the law of the other par excellence by believing that he can reduce his object basely (sadism) or by binding himself to a contract (masochism). Can this be discussed in the meta-ethical context of Sade and Kant, such as Lacan them has devoted a text, you will also by perverse elements ask in the religion by believers sometimes from verso will chat to achieve "God" through prayer and sacrifice. Just as here the absolute (divine) Other ultimately promises enjoyment, or at least believes in heaven and hell as enjoyment and punishment, the perverter also plans the staging of situations (such as orgies) to perish as a subject in the fusion with others just as occasional torments are organized in the religious ritual to celebrate unity with the divine. Thus, fasting can also be practiced like an imposed commandment, since at the same time it does not exclude enjoyment, for even if the food is a punishment, the "father" (God) is there and loves the fasting.
Of course, the pervert himself is sometimes disgusted with his actions, like the brothers after the killing of the father in Freud's work Totem and Taboo. But in this disgust, at the same time, the recognition of a limit expresses itself, for disgust is like a symbol of castration, in that just the enjoyment cannot be absolute. In this respect the (symbolic) Father hereby informs the perverts to the aid of the reference shows between transgression/disgust again an implicitly given betrayal of the desire of the other in this perverse transgression of the law of. However, it should clearly from the perversion as mental or to distinguish structure (such as in neurosis) and in the criminal perversion, as the latter in the form of destruction of the other assumes through its extinction in death. Exhibitionists, alcoholics and drug addicts, however, additionally show that they need the others to the look of the other also as "disgust" still exist to be able to, because this passivity is not an act to show that a pure object are not possible and so that the enjoyment of the perverted remains incomplete as well as disappointing, as it is also the novel of Bataille. And the pain is used in perversion to enjoy desire, because desire usually leaves the subject very quickly after satisfaction, while the time cycle of pain lasts longer. Therefore, the pervert tries to install a mechanism of desire that nourishes this desire again and again. In sadism, this is very unique, but each other, in a (psychodynamic seen) perverse structure for objects by and of unwanted pain and runs are eilungen that mutual "Enjoy" -leave less quickly cease why such bonds -just the pain as Marriage or relationships can take a long time, as the therapy shows every day.
In the case of the pervert, desire as a transgression is not bound to any defect, for the prohibition to enjoy one's self as opposed to the other is negated to assert pleasure as universal. If need be, therefore, the pervert makes himself the instrument of enjoyment by the other to (imaginarily) move outside his subjective separation, as if he were this other, not to renounce him (as non-castration) to have to. One may wonder if there are parallels with mysticism, for even the mystic often believes that he can unite with God through suffering, even though his conscious motives are different. In a sense, the separation of God is abolished, but as the perverse becomes an object, a fetish of its passion, the mystic sees himself as the ego, person, or subject in God.
In perversion, therefore, one's subjectivization, which according to Lacan is itself subject to difference or division, becomes a subject without a barrier, to be his fetish instead of the law (phallus) for the other. The perverse view of the real becomes the enjoyment of the other, that is to the self-serving contract to whip victims (Sade), which means that the identifications with the other here cannot exist in the void as non-fulfillment of desire, Therefore, the pervert needs the other in the double sense of the word: As a "partner" and as a submission to the gaze and the voice that commands or manipulates, such as the seduced or abused child. The paradox of perversion is therefore only apparent, because the enjoyment is achieved (often in a very dangerous way) only through the pain of the other, with which the pervert then cannot become one in fusionnellen meaning, since the identification with the victim as an object excludes the encounter with the other as a subject. According to Freud, perversion is a fixation on a primary or childlike sense of pleasure, which neo-psychoanalytically implies that the signifier chain was immobilized to install a fascinating image over the fetish, which as a reminder serves as a screen as a projective image surface on which the objectification of the victim takes place. With Lacan one can therefore say that the pervert does not bind his enjoyment -as usual in the desire -to the flexible form of the request or request (demanded), since the pervert already knows that he will have to do without the satisfaction but still believes in it -and therefore sets everything in motion to achieve its goal. But as in his desire, that is, as an instrument or auxiliary to the objectification of the other, the perverse itself becomes its decay as a victim of disgust, as we saw.
So that we have enough elements in hands to understand that to achieve an extreme enjoyment, the extent is impossible, as the subject of any crossing of a frontier, it encounters the waiver by an impassable limit that in the depth psychology of speech from the castration is formed. About the everyday phrase addition, i transgression therefore an experience of human experience of the infinite, which at the same time the insurmountable limit remains, then that a dialectic out forms which have a human structure simply designates, a measure of the possible for humans corresponds to and at the same At the height of the impossible, as Jaspers once put it, "The maximum is the minimum of man". This borderline-boundless dialectic therefore implies a correlation of continuity/contiguity of human experience as a line, which then reduces the transgression a spectacular break with a norm makes it a continuous existential or ecstatic act, moving back and forth between the limited and the infinite. For that reason, we had already used the concept of transgression for the original connection of subjectivity/life, for the proto-relation to purely phenomenological life is at the same time utter impotence for us, as is the fullness in the passableness of our pathic self-effectiveness, which causes transgression or the desire corresponding to it in each therapy/analysis come to the language and look for an answer on the part of the phenomenological-depth-psychological nature of man. In the example of the clinical case of "Little Hans" in Freud, Lacan unfolds therefore the already known to us the context of identification based on Vatermetaphyer to transgression (leaving the house) to make. For the symbolic father is the pivotal point of transgression insofar as the subject occupies his place in the crossing of the border and at the same time reduces the danger to explore the possible of the impossible of unboundedness.
Nonetheless, existential transgression remains an illusion, since limit and unlimited are only ever given in one movement, which seeks and negates each other to progress in the impossible of the impossible. If one considers this élan radically phenomenological and not only deep psychologically as the father/mother metaphor of prohibition (incest) and law (identification), then it becomes visible that precisely the purely self-affective life already contains the effective transgression since it already contains within his self-movement no longer knows a mundane border, but allows any constellation of Possible/Impossible about his infinitely moralized intensity. Therefore, doubts are allowed as to whether, according to Lacan, transgression involves only enjoying the frontier, while desire itself continues to be subject to the phantasm of such limited enjoyment. For, in the enjoyment of the prohibition, one experiences only one's powerlessness, to sense, through its narrow gap, the possibility of infinity, which cannot be continued above the pleasure principle -namely, as the desire that is possible without any reason? This would mean binding the transgression to the paroxystic intention of over-striving itself, while in the very passableness of powerlessness pure enjoyment of life as absolute self-affection is given. Only based on Lacan's differ (n) substantive view of the subject can it be stated that "there is sometimes only a brief burst of enjoyment in the life of a subject", for example in a dream, lapsus or in passionate eroticism, because the possible / impossible movement would always be incomplete.

Conclusion
If the father/mother constellation is to be the most original in terms of depth psychology, then naturally the self-revelation of life as its pure "enjoyment" is already limited in an empirical or structural unconscious, and never will that original transgression of life be tested, already absolutely phenomenological affected by its primal power. Consequently, if the neurotic does not embrace integral enjoyment and perhaps only dream about the possibilities of erotic life, then ultimately not because he fears death in the real transgression, but even deeper into contact with an absolute life, which is the normality Surpassing the safety of everyday life to allow another trial of one's own subjective life. Transgression must therefore be practiced in therapy as the concrete breaking through of such anxiety, so that meaning /desire within certain fixations does not break apart to leave room for the phantasm of the desired "impossible" alone. Since the primordial can only be lived as a feeling in one's existence, this impossible can only be realized in the movement of the corresponding subjective sensation. The transgression as "distortion" (twist to allow start) of border/ phantasm to desire "above the exceeded limit" only thus reproduced only the Spanning between having and being as one's relationship of phallus/castration. Figuratively speaking, the transgression n would thus be a mere "gap-wide open door" that is not crossed, because the volume lending only could lie in death, we feared, so far the transgression that may mean leaving the traveled routes and "betrayal" of others. After all, if we are alive, then there is not that fear, with which the question of transgression is already completely answered from the source -no longer having to fear any death.