the third ear


Also found in: Wikipedia.

the third ear

Psychiatry A popular term for the use of intuition, sensitivity, and awareness– a 'third ear' of subliminal cues to interpret clinical observations of Pts in therapy. See Intuition.
References in periodicals archive ?
As described by Ellsworth, the third ear listens "not for what a student knows (discrete packages of knowledge), but for the terms that shape a student's knowing, her not knowing, her forgetting, her circles of stuck places and resistances" (25).
Cyborg Art and Bioethics: Stelarc and The Third Ear
Intentaremos abordar estas preguntas a traves de la obra The third ear de Stelarc, inscribiendola en la tradicion del cyborg art y poniendola en tension con conceptos clave para la relacion (bio)etica y estetica.
Aqui podemos poner en duda la obra The third ear bajo parametros bioeticos (5).
I wildly associated these works with the Freudian psychoanalyst Theodor Reik's Listening with the Third Ear [1948]; that is, the inner ear.
No doubt, the third ear of which we often speak will appear to many not only as an anatomical, but also as a psychological, abnormality--even to psychologists.
Listening with the Third Ear (New York: Farrar, Straus, 1948)
Hearing Difference: The Third Ear In Experimental, Deaf, And Multicultural Theater by Kanta Kochhar-Lindgren (Assistant Professor in the Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Program at the University Of Washington) is a scholarly study of the connections between hearing and deafness in theater that pushes the boundaries of experimentation, as well as deaf and multicultural theater.
Hearing difference; the third ear in experimental, deaf, and multicultural theater.
Being able to listen with the third ear allows us to be interpretive and listen to what was actually said versus what was meant to be said.
Could you say that the analyst sustains something unconscious, whether you call it listening with the third ear, the ear as the receptacle of the unconscious--that the pervert serf-consciously identifies, as you correctly say, not with the symptom but with the fantasy us a program, and thereby fills out the objet a, whereas the Lacanian analyst holds it empty and receptive in some way to the future?