The Fundamental Psychopathology, created through the universitary and theoretic work of Pierre Fédida, is a meeting point of different disciplines engaged with human sufferance, and some methodological questions therefrom arise, among others, how to establish a dialogue between different theories and how to treat relative differences. The subject of differences concerns both, the point of view of research and exchange methods, as well as the conception of an adequate institutional structure for receiving these differences.
Psychanalysis can make some contributions to these subjects, as it deals with a double alterity: topical – the conscious/unconscious relationship – and intersubjective, because one of the main conditions of the analytic dispositive is the capacity of receiving subjectivity in its radical otherness.
There is a structural homology between intrapsychic, intersubjectif, intertheoretic and interdisciplinary levels: they are all concerned by an otherness epistemology.
Psychoanalytic knowledge does not adapt to institutionalisation attempts. The otherness of its object offers resistances, and a remainder is always left. Similarly, Fundamental Psychopathology does not adapt to a knowledge institutionalisation. Is is an empty space – khôra – which receives metaphoric mouvements coming from knowledge production as well as un-knowledge which naturally accompanies that production.
“Father’s name” does not therefore represent fidelity to a given knowledge, but habilitation to creation and support of outcoming metaphores, in khôra, which is both, empty space and foundation act.
Fundamental Psychopathology; pathos; alterity; epistemology