My confidence in working with the texts themselves has increased a lot this year. If you read them as lecture transcripts for a predominately clinical audience by a self-consciously oracular thinker, they can be deciphered even if they remain hard work. You just need to follow up the self-references and sit with the puzzling bits, consulting secondary literature at points. But the diagrams are still baffling to me. I vaguely get the thrust of what’s being represented but I am still sceptical as to whether there are readers who can follow the detail:
This diagram is not some pointless complication. There’s nothing for us to be astonished at and no reason to stiffen up?
Seminar X, Pg 44, Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller
Mark Carrigan 