e o próprio mal moral na acção do «si». Na raiz desse desejo ressentido de imputar
culpados, de ordenar lógica e juridicamente a existência e a vida, descobre-se,
afinal, a própria radicalidade do «si» maligno
478. Em última instancia, o que está em
477“Job constituye la piedra de escándalo y la anulación de la justicia de la retribución” PRIETO, «El
problema del mal en la obra de Paul Ricoeur», in Filosofía oggi, 1980, 3, p. 406.
478“Mais la philosophie politique non plus ne peut rester en dehors de nos préoccupations; quand on a
assisté et pris part à l’histoire effroyable qui a abouti aux hécatombes des camps de concentration, à la terreur des régimes totalitaires et au péril nucléaire, on ne peut plus douter que la problématique du
mal ne passe aussi par la problématique du pouvoir et que le thème de l’aliénation qui court de
Rousseau à Marx en traversant Hegel n’ait quelque chose à voir avec l’accusation des vieux prophètes d’Israël” RICOEUR, Philosophie de la volonté 2. Finitude et culpabilité, 1960, p. 13; negrito nosso. Com efeito, a dinâmica da «problemática do poder», ao desdobrar as suas diversas manifestações enquanto leis coercivas (morais e/ou jurídicas) sobre o «si» ilustra o cerne da questão no que concerne ao nosso entendimento acerca da «problemática do mal» e da «lei-do-pai» como referimos infra: “the deviant
appears to inscribe himself in an internal dynamic where the law-of-the-father was never internalised and as such, all other laws were interpreted as external to the Self. The deviant does
191
causa na moral da retribuição é a tentativa humana de culpabilizar moralmente a
autoridade, a lei, o Todo Outro, em suma, um Deus-Pai, que, na nossa terminologia,
corresponde à «lei-do-pai»
479; atitude bem distante da posição sapiencial que renuncia
ao desejo de ser recompensado pelas suas virtudes, ao desejo de ser poupado pelo
sofrimento, e à componente infantil do desejo de imortalidade
480.
not recognize authority by the fact that he did not obey (symbolically) the primary law (law-of-the- father), and all other laws are merely mitigated reproductions of the law-of-the-father. Therefore, the deviant does not find any psychological reasons for obeying external laws, given the psychological fact that he did not obey his own internal law; this oedipal problematic is processed and developed under the spectrum of symbolic crime, not being arbitrary to affirm that in our most severe oedipal conflicts (not being resolved inherently through a positive identification with the father), the crime passes from being symbolic to real, dislocating itself from a crime against the father to crime aimed at society, which is, according to Lacan, represented in the child’s mind precisely as the «Name-of-the-Father», by the «Law-of-the-Father»: «It is in the name of the father that we must
recognize the support of the symbolic function which, from the dawn of history, has identified his person with the figure of the law. This conception enables us to distinguish clearly, in the analysis of a
case, the unconscious effects of this function from the narcissistic relations, or even from the real relations that the Subject sustains with the image and the action of the person who embodies it» (Lacan, 1977, p. 74; alterações nossas). Lacan created these concepts in his Seminars Freud’s Papers on
Technique, The Seminar, Book I in 1953 and The Psychoses, The Seminar, Book III in 1956 (the
former about ‘the Rat Man’ Ernst Lanzer; the latter about Daniel Paul Schreber), where the author
explains the figure of the father as having the role of primary signifier. The primary signifier constitutes the first and most important signifier of culture ‘assimilated’ by the infant; this operates as the symbolical function of the law (cf., Lacan, 1953-54; 1955-56). Accordingly, the deviant appears to inscribe himself in an internal dynamic where the law-of-the-father was never internalised and as such, all other laws were interpreted as external to the Self. The deviant does not recognize authority by the fact that he did not obey (symbolically) the primary law (law-of-the-father), and all other laws are merely mitigated reproductions of the law-of-the-father. Therefore, the deviant does not find any psychological reasons for obeying external laws, given the psychological fact that he did not obey his own internal law. It is as though there exists an ‘oedipal wound’ within the deviant that never healed, a guilt that only crime pacifies but which is indelibly reinforced by the primary crime (the very first crime the deviant felt to have suffered)” DIAS, «The Heritage of Freudian Theoretical and Clinical Constructs in Contemporary Psychoanalytical Practice: Epistemological Conjectures and Clinical Refutations»[Thesis]; «The significance of the Menninger Clinic in the validation of psychoanalysis in international mental health practice inherent to the contributions of Lacan, Fairbairn, Matte-Blanco, Bion, Grotstein & Kernberg» [Subtitle], in Doctoral thesis, Goldsmiths, University of London, 2010, pp. 263- 264, pesquisável em Items of Type Thesis - Goldsmiths Research Online; alterações nossas. Cf. supra notas 442, 444 e 455.
479
Cf. supra nota anterior e respectivas remissões.
480“L’horizon vers lequel se dirige cette sagesse me paraît être un renoncement aux désirs mêmes dont la
blessure engendre la plainte: renoncement d’abord au désir d’être récompensé pour ses vertus, renoncement au désir d’être épargné par la souffrance, renoncement à la composante infantile du désir d’immortalité, qui ferait accepter la mort comme un aspect de cette part du négatif, dont K. Barth distinguait soigneusement le néant agressif, das Nichtige. Pareille sagesse est peut-être esquissée à la fin du livre de Job, quand il est dit que Job est arrivé à aimer Dieu pour rien, faisant ainsi perdre à Satan son
192