Urgency is a hole in time, it is the time of eternalization. When a traumatic event breaks through, perplexity arises, regardless of the structural diagnosis. The subjective response will come afterwards. Urgency is a time of strangeness, with unusual phenomena, which can produce diagnostic confusions in the first interviews.

Do we traumatize the trauma? If so, how does the analyst-trauma intervene in the urgency? What he does is to try to get rid of the accumulated knowledge available to both practitioners and institutions. Emergency response services also accumulate experiences and this can generate contagions which prevent one from perceiving the singularities. When it comes to the individual in urgency, it is a question of capturing in what way the sudden eruption of jouissance phenomena, of phenomena of separation, have occurred, there where the subject went off course. Our interventions aim at making readable something of the ineffable.

That which allows us to grasp the mechanism of urgency is psychosis. Delusion is an interpretation, something that gives meaning to what breaks out into a person’s life and produces a point of perplexity, which we can qualify as a moment waiting for meaning, an enigmatic, unsatisfactory moment. It is about traumatizing this non-meaning, without feeding it with new sense. In all cases the work with the subject in urgency should give us an idea of ​​the alienation at stake in the phenomena of separation.

We paraphrase Lacan in his text “On the Subject Who is Finally In Question”. We can be content that -as long as a trace of what we have established lasts- there will be psychoanalyst-trauma to respond to certain urgencies and transform them into subjective ones. Let each one find in himself something of the language that he speaks, able to produce some signifier that sets time in motion once again, so that the past can exist as such.

In order to situate ourselves within urgency we use the elementary phenomenon as an immobile metonymy, or as an impotent metaphor. We use the “operator of perplexity” in so far as the normal situation of the human being as an effect of the signifier and traumatized by lalangue, is to have to decipher a signifier. In the same way, we take the question of the initial paranoia of every subject at the beginning of an analysis, the signifier of transference, which authorizes the subsequent interpretations, so that we homologate this signifier to the one at the beginning of a delusion.

The signifier One is always elementary, one does not know what it means, it is waiting for knowledge, that of the S₂ or of delusion. All knowledge is delusional and delusion is a form of knowledge, with the element of delusion that is always present within invention.

In the work of the spoken urgency some jouissance begins to be lost. Is it possible to produce a master signifier, an S₁ in urgency, that is, within the context of an emergency setting? I define subjective urgency as the chance to make a different experience with speech, and that this changes things.

We also learn that the analyst, who is the addressee of the suffering of the one who makes himself the object of the jouissance of the Other, must have an idea of ​​the corners of meaning as a defence against the real without law. It is part of the subtleties of the analyst’s act to know when to get someone to speak and when it is better to silence, to border a topic, some words, so that the subject himself may invent his safeguards.

The knowledge that is at stake in an analysis, which includes emergencies (urgencies), is knowing about a certain number of phenomena, of subjective mutations, of words that have acted and transformed the subject. One gets to know about something and at the same time that something ceases to exist.

Psychoanalysis authorizes, in the impasses of urgency, the search for what stands out in the “pauses” between truth and jouissance. A humble offer for each one to take it in their own measure.