The president Schreber

F.1. DANIEL PAUL SCHREBER

[1]

Schreber, Senatspräsident, the parody: “I emphatically deny to be or have ever been mentally ill.” The logical contestation postulates the ultimate illness as a death illness (mental illness, illness of the Other) and a fatal illness. But here, the context is the plot, the mode of two from which the parody also proceeds.

[2]

The consciousness of the illness is sanctioned by the pact with Sophía. The consciousness of death is sanctioned by the pact with the Sphinx.

[3]

For Schreber’s psychiatric experts, his writing is already a hidden sign of illness — theirs.

[4]

The consciousness of illness and the consciousness of death are the consciousness of the experts, not of Schreber.

[5]

That the act is exempt from psychiatric consciousness means, for Schreber’s experts, assigning it to nosography and penography.

[6]

The task of consciousness is demonic: it is the task of fading.

[7]

For the trumpeters, what matters are the things diverted from the word, the ideal things, the things as such, the substantial things, the spoken things, the things that bear the mark of the ideal interdiction.

[8]

The exemplary case is not Schreber’s, but that of the commentators: it is the exemplarity that comforts the grammar of their spirit.

[9]

‘Psychosis’ does not fall within any reflexivity, not even the reflexivity of the trumpeters.

[10]

That the act is without a subject responds to an annotation of what is wrongly called ‘psychosis’.

[11]

“Normality withstands the test of psychosis,” said, in his moment of clarity, the presenter of the patient.

[12]

The ideal authority, the father of spirit, and the woman of spirit: from here, incarnation; from here, the faculty to legislate and decide; from here, a phantasm of authority that becomes a phantasm of metamorphosis. Aporia and parody in the linguistics of Schreber’s text.

[13]

The phantasm of authority involves the phantasm of father and the phantasm of woman, between the name of the name and the law of death.

[14]

The height of ideal authority is the tip of a pleonasm: it is the pleonasm that envelops Schreber’s text.

[15]

The ideal authority, the name of the name: and the “rays” that vanish, between the paths and the edges, the cord and the thread of the cosmos of life.

[16]

The ideal authority, the ‘paternal phantasm’: the metamorphosis into The Woman passes through farce, parody, and the Other who laughs.

[17]

The ideal authority is exercised in the phallophoric and spectral parade: the “paternal phantasm” is the phantasm of The Woman.

[18]

The ideal authority seeks completeness: from here, the metamorphosis between mysticism and mystery. Schreber’s analysis is the analysis of the madness of God, it is the analysis of the Other who wants time and who wants death.

[19]

The ideal authority is the authority in the name of the name: and it becomes Sophía and Sphinx, to affirm itself as the authority of time and death. This is what Schreber, with irony, calls his portentousness. But, in the act, the portent of the ‘paternal phantasm’ does not hold.

[20]

Schreber’s text: the parody of The Woman is the parody of the ‘paternal phantasm.’ And the pathos of the amphibology between the ‘divine rays’ and ‘pleasure’ does not hold. For the rest, boundless pleasure shatters the ideal pleasure between contemplation and suffering.

[21]

The ‘paternal phantasm’ is ritualised in the metamorphosis in the Woman: and here comes the anorexia of the word and of its language in their incompleteness.

[22]

The ‘paternal phantasm’: The woman bears the sign of authority. From here, the parody of Daniel Paul Schreber and the fatuity of the metamorphosis under the banners of Sophía and the Sphinx.

[23]

The ‘paternal phantasm’ is the phantasm of palingenesis through metamorphosis into The Woman: it is the phantasm that fades away in the ‘rays.’

[24]

The ‘paternal phantasm’: the ideal authority, The Woman, and the body and the scene of Kallipedia, between medicalism and penal and penitentiary possession. But the act is not ideally closed and contained: the act does not close and does not contain itself.

[25]

In the aporia of the ‘paternal phantasm’, Schreber’s body and scene are of the word, and not of the spirit.

[26]

The body and the scene of the word do not lend themselves to the ‘paternal phantasm’: the judges themselves cannot observe them, except, like God, to take an interest, one day, in the corpse and its dissection.

[27]

The subject of ideal authority is entrenched in the totality of the One: and bears the mark of The Woman.

[28]

The Woman, her aporia: from the incarnation of ideal authority to the incarnation of Sophía and the Sphinx, to the metamorphosis in the name of death. The gymnastics of Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber is necrophilic.

[29]

The ideal authority is the authority of the subject. Between the subject of time and the subject of death. And in the penal and penitentiary convergence in its legal, moral, social nature.

[30]

Schreber does not accept the ‘paternal phantasm,’ which, in his text, appears vain.

[31]

The name of the name, The Woman, the ideal trinity: and the nomination is not avoided; and the two and the singular trial stand at the hand of the word. Theorematics and axiomatics of Schreber’s gesture: a gymnastics distinct from the paternal Kallipädie.

[32]

The field of the name of the name is the field of the spirit, it is the field of death: the alchemical mutation, the metamorphosis, the cannibalistic communion, the penal and penitentiary assumption of the substance. But the act remains. The act is ideally unreachable. The act is sexual: scientia ac partitio. The act in its pleonasm and its anomaly.

[33]

The sexual act renders Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber’s Kallipädie fatuous. The sexual act: that is, life in the act. The act that myth, like pleonasm, envelops. The act in its fairy tale, in its fable, in its saga.

[34]

The Schrebergarten is the garden in the name of the name, it is the garden of metamorphosis into The Woman, it is the garden of coprophilia and necrophilia.

[35]

Schreber’s text: the body and the scene do not conjugate, they do not become the body of spirit and the scene of spirit, they do not allow themselves to be treated by the paternal Kallipädie.

[36]

The pure scene, innate, is the scene of spirit. The radical, natural body is the body of spirit. Schreber’s text: no place for the body and the scene of the word.

[37]

The body and the scene die, the word is diverted: from here, the interest of Schreber’s god in the corpse.

[38]

The matter of saying, the adjacency and the interdiction: from here, the enunciates and the enunciation; from here, the linguistic elements of Schreber’s text. But the commentators have sought and continue to seek grammatical exemplarity, to comfort nosology and penology.

[39]

Psychoanalysm has sought the demographic case and the civil case within a doctrine that remains gnostic: it has missed the text Daniel Paul Schreber.

[40]

The psychopomps and the inquisitors miss Schreber’s text in order to confirm themselves in their prejudice, in the subjective certainty of their ‘illness.’

[41]

Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber knows time and knows death: from here, his pedagogy; from here, the aporia and the anorexia inherent in the text of Daniel Paul Schreber.

[42]

With our reading, the text of Daniel Paul Schreber is the text Daniel Paul Schreber: a restitution, with the notes of a legend.

[43]

Authoritarianism is the general form of feminism.

[44]

The ‘authoritarian conception’ is the feminist conception, but in Schreber’s text, it results in inconception.

[45]

Schreber’s text: the ‘hints of femininity’ are the asterisks of the mask; and there is no longer the form of the Other.

[46]

The mask is alien to the idea of ​​belonging: this is what Schreber insists on.

[47]

The mask that becomes social is the ideal mask, it is the suppressed mask, it is the phallic and spectral form.

[48]

The collective dress rests on the ‘social disguise’, with which the demonological hold is the plagiaristic and autophagic hold.

[49]

The ‘sexual disguise’ is a hypotyposis: the vestis is the linguistic specificity of writing of sexuality.

[50]

Schreber’s text: the vestis is incompatible with the disguise and its Trinitarian sign.

[51]

Theological persecution has the form of ideal love: thus, the ‘paternal phantasm’ is unsustainable with Schreber’s text.

[52]

The ideal fact is the vain antidote to naming. Here, Schreber’s annotation.

[53]

Despite the ideal obligation, the act is illicit. Here, Schreber’s annotation. Without the ideality of comparison and confrontation.

[54]

The other woman is the subjective confirmation of the taboo of woman. From here, once again, Schreber.

[55]

In the act, the phantasm of the other woman does not hold: and Schreber will never be either an idiot (like God) or stupid (as God might wrongly think of him).

[56]

The pedagogy of Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber is the pedagogy of the phallus and the spectre: it is the pedagogy of castration and metamorphosis, it is the pedagogy of the androgynous Trinitarian. Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber stands in place of the woman and in place of the father.

[57]

If Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber with his pedagogy of penetration is The Woman, Daniel Paul Schreber cannot be the woman: his parody debunks the genealogical and archaeological, hierarchical and hegemonic system.

[58]

The ‘conception’ of Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber contemplates the Entmannung in its own spiritual exercise: from here, the Entmannung takes the form of the fact, the fact of time and the fact of death.

[59]

On the basis of the name of the name, the Entmannung takes the form of the Other, between phallus and spectre.

[60]

The name that is named and that has a name is the name of the name: and it requires the spiritual conjugation of the father and the woman. That it is absurd applies to the nomen in the act.

[61]

Power in the name of the name is spiritual power: it is the power of time and the power of death.

[62]

The name of the name is the basis of the androgynous ceremonial: hence, the parody of Schreber, with the phantasm of the metamorphosis into the woman.

[63]

The sexuality that bears the mark of the One is called ‘bisexuality,’ or ‘transsexuality,’ or ‘polysexuality.’

[64]

The Entmannung [unmanning] is not a fact but a ‘paternal phantasm’, the phantasm of The Woman, if we think about it, between imagination and belief: it is the phantasm that the ‘rays’ make fatuous.

[65]

The Entmannung is a phantasm that does not hold: and the transformation into The Woman, asterisk of the relation and of the thing, does not hold either.

[66]

The subjection to the ideal law is called ‘symbolic castration’.

[67]

The amphibology between amor veritatis and observatio sui dissolves into the parody of derision with which god becomes hypotyposis. Thus Schreber. The phantasm of unmanning does not scratch the paradox of the lie, but operates through the phrastic writing, without any suppression of the frater.

[68]

If the Entmannung is not a fact, the metamorphosis under the sign of the One is impossible.

[69]

Time does not end, no cut of the cut, no name of time, no spirit of time between phallus and spectre: the Entmannung is a theological phantasm that does not hold. Here, Schreber’s annotation.

[70]

Schreber’s god remains without machina and without technica, without apocalypse and without concealment: and he operates in the palimpsest.

[71]

The ‘ridiculous god’ is a hypotyposis; it is not God who laughs but the Other.

[72]

The ideality of the relation and of the thing, the phantasm of Entmannung: and the reality whose basis is the narcissism of life.

[73]

The plan of Entmannung is the plan of redemption. But Schreber’s text is without line and without plan.

[74]

The sign of Entmannung is the sign of time (the sign of Sophía) and the sign of death (the sign of the Sphinx): Schreber does not make himself subject to it.

[75]

Schreber’s act: no taboo of the mother, no caesura of the caesura, no certainty of time and death that pursues Entmannung.

[76]

With Schreber’s parody, God is no longer active and passive, but operates through writing.

[77]

Schreber’s text: the ‘feminine’ creates the hypotyposis of God; and there is no longer the trinitarian idea of the One.

[78]

Schreber’s god is not the representation of the dead father, but the asterisk of blasphemy: Daniel Paul Schreber’s text is irreligious.

[79]

The father, The woman, the metamorphosis: and the remembrance that does not ‘fade,’ the structural remembrance, the remembrance as the property of memory, the remembrance constituted by mistake, by the gap, by failure.

[80]

The father of spirit and the woman of spirit, with the corollaries of ‘paternity’ an ‘femininity’ as ‘signifiers’ form, on the name of the name, the solarity that Schreber’s text dissipates.

[81]

The spiritual conjugation between the father and the woman leads to the law of death. The spiritual conjugation between the son (or daughter) and the man leads to the ethics of death. The spiritual conjugation between the mother and the Other leads to the clinic of death.

[82]

Is woman death? A question not of the Sphinx, but of the enigma of pragmatic difference and variety, of the enigma of light and simplicity, of the enigma of clinical practice.

[83]

Schreber’s ‘spiritual children’ are significant: they are the children of the ideal infinite place and of the ideal eternal place. They do not affect the act but, in the act, they are asterisks of the symbol, of the letter and of the cipher, as well as the indices of the infinite and of the eternity of the pragmatic instant.

[84]

Schreber’s ‘new men’ are the men of spirit: it is the aporia of ideal desire, it is the parody of the ethics of death.

[85]

If the father is of spirit, becoming a woman of spirit is Schreber’s sovereign parody. Thus the naming is unavoidable.

[86]

Even the hunt for the name, in its act, does not escape naming.

[87]

Take away the naming: and you have the substantia sui, you have the subjectivity of the ideal Other, the subjectivity of destiny.

[88]

Verwerfung is the asterisk of naming. And there is no longer the ideal hunt. And there is no longer the idea of ​​the idea.

[89]

Vereitelung (frustration) is the asterisk of Versagung (renunciation), a narrative property of memory in its theorematics and in its axiomatics, satisfaction remaining inviolable.

[90]

In Schreber’s text, renunciation debunks the will of the Other: the matter of saying is without ideal gates.

[91]

Verleugnung [disavowal]: a form of the anorexia of the loyalty to the word. By dispelling the will of the Other, things are spoken, done, written, qualified: they are things in their order, in their linguistic revolution, in their combinatorics and combination—they are things in the procedure by integration.

[92]

The gerund, in its linguistic revolution, is marked by unsaying, whereby what is said and done is written.

[93]

Perversio is the stanza, the phrastic ciphreme: it is the twist, the fraud. And it pertains to metonymic displacement.

[94]

The ‘subject of science’ is an oxymoron: science is without a subject. It is the science of the word: it is the science of life in the act. It is the scientia ac partitio.

[95]

The torture of the spirit is grammatical in the conjugation of the body and the scene, of the point and the counterpoint, of the foot and the step: in the act, it turns into the linguistic torsion of the civil gerund; and there is no longer dependency with all its autonomy. And here lies Schreber’s annotation.

[96]

The sensation is structural, and not of the subject: and it is irreconcilable with the pathos that courts the amphibology between pleasure and death. Hence, Schreber’s parody.

[97]

“The memory of my father and my brother” (Schreber): a memory not to be obscured, a memory to which nothing is referred, a memory to be safeguarded as a good memory: a memory that nevertheless enters the structure between a range of linguistic elements and a range of properties.

[98]

The relation between desire and law is made fatuous by Schreber’s gesture: a gesture between the pars and the mask.

[99]

Schreber’s text: the ‘last survivor’ is the asterisk of solitude, not the sign of the subject.

[100]

No idea of ​​the semblant: and God confirms the solitude, which will never be of the subject.

[101]

Schreber’s text: no communion, but identification, virtue of the semblant, which dispels all communion.

[102]

The idea of ​​greatness is fatuous: it never reaches the semblant in its solitude.

[103]

Does the company of spirit suppress solitude? Solitude dispels the company of spirit.

[104]

Solitude is enough: and the ideal closure vanishes behind the statute of the journey.

[105]

Combinatorics and combination have nothing human, nothing divine: their characteristics are not spiritual.

Translated from Italian by Mats Svensson.