https://www.lacan.com/seminars3.htm
The Seminars of Jacques Lacan
© lacan.com 1997/2003☆ラカン セミナール３
https://www.lacan.com/seminars3.htm
ジャック・ラカンのセミナー
©lacan.com 1997/2003 1965-1966セミナー、ブックXIII：精神分析の対象。
フランス語：未発表。
英語：未発表。
知識と真実に分けられた主題のテーマは、セミナーを通して提起されます。ラカンは、「トポロジーは比喩ではなく、オブジェクトaを使用した厳密なモンタージュである」と述べて、数学的モデルと比喩の間の代替案に対応します。したがって、4つの数学の使用：穴のある円盤、メビウスの帯、トーラス、クラインの壺。「オブジェクトaの欠如の穴は、真実と知識の分野の交差点に位置するでしょう」：これは精神分析の貢献です。したがって、偶発性を見逃したり忘れたりした真実について科学に疑問を投げかけることができます。同じことが宗教でも起こります。ラカンは、「分析目的で私の言葉を使用する人」と「」の2つのカテゴリに、聴衆を分割して統合します。
ラカンは欲望のグラフに行き、それらを彼のトポロジーに関連付けます。オブジェクトaは4つの側面にあります：
1。他者の要求（オブジェクトaは糞便）
2。他者の要求（オブジェクトaは胸）
3。他者の欲求（オブジェクト） aは視線です）
4。他者の欲望（オブジェクトaは声です）
この観点から、彼は、ジョンズ・ホプキンス大学で、ロマーン・ヤーコブソンが主催した米国での講義、特に「あらゆる主題に必要な他者性の混合としての構造」について説明しています。ミシェル・フーコーがベラスケスのラス・メニーナスについて語ります。彼の演説により、ラカンは彼の絵画の理論を「視線の罠」として想起させることができます。少女は遠近法と消失点のスリット、絵画の隠された中心であり、「このギャップでは、何も見えない場所で、オブジェクトの構造を認識することは不可能です：インファンタの下ドレス、「それは私を見る」、目が見えないようにされている間...」ジョルジュ・バタイユの「歴史」oeilは、女性の性器との関係において、すべてのオブジェクト間の接続を確立するテキストとして引用されています。したがって、男根はこのギャップの場所を占める兆候であり、不可能または不可能な現実です。これは、言語と視線（フロイトによって除外された）の周りの無意識の再形成を伴います。ラカンは、欲望と去勢を基盤とする主題のフロイトの次元に戻ります。女性の性器である膣は、-Φの形でさえ、男根のスクリーンがない限り、魅了され、破滅につながるオブジェクトaになります。結局、陰茎は、見られる症状として、謎めいたオブジェクトaの存在をほとんど隠しません-a。男根は、このギャップの場所を占める兆候であり、不可能または不可能な現実です。これは、言語と視線（フロイトによって除外された）の周りの無意識の再形成を伴います。ラカンは、欲望と去勢を基盤とする主題のフロイトの次元に戻ります。女性の性器である膣は、-Φの形でさえ、男根のスクリーンがない限り、魅了され、破滅につながるオブジェクトaになります。結局、陰茎は、見られる症状として、謎めいたオブジェクトaの存在をほとんど隠しません-a。男根は、このギャップの場所を占める兆候であり、不可能または不可能な現実です。これは、言語と視線（フロイトによって除外された）の周りの無意識の再形成を伴います。ラカンは、欲望と去勢を基盤とする主題のフロイトの次元に戻ります。女性の性器である膣は、-Φの形でさえ、男根のスクリーンがない限り、魅了され、破滅につながるオブジェクトaになります。結局、陰茎は、見られる症状として、謎めいたオブジェクトaの存在をほとんど隠しません-a。女性の性器はオブジェクトaになり、-Φの形であっても、男根のスクリーンがない限り、魅力的で破滅につながります。結局、陰茎は、見られる症状として、謎めいたオブジェクトaの存在をほとんど隠しません-a。女性の性器はオブジェクトaになり、-Φの形であっても、男根のスクリーンがない限り、魅力的で破滅につながります。結局、陰茎は、見られる症状として、謎めいたオブジェクトaの存在をほとんど隠しません-a。
注意すべき点として、視線は対象の側面ではなく、対象の側面にあります。「それは、観察対象がすでに見つめられているオブジェクト（写真）内のポイントをマークします」（SlavojZizek）。視線は画像内のスポットであり、被写体の存在を保証するものではなく、その可視性をぼかすことによって、オブジェクトと被写体の間の関係に分裂をもたらします。後者は、被写体がいるポイントで画像を見ることができません。彼を見つめている。ジゼクはサイコを引き出し、ヒッチコックの視点が近づいてくる家（近づいてくる女性から見た）から同じ女性が近づいた（家から見た）に切り替わるため、ノーマン・ベイツの家が不気味になり、不安な印象を与えます。家は彼女を見つめています。
1966-1967Leséminaire、Livre XIV：
フランス語：未発表。
英語：未発表。
ラカンは、ファンタジーにおける意味のある構造の重要性を強調しています。彼は出発点として、ファンタジーの論理的な表現である数学$を取ります。数学はすでに欲望のグラフで、Lesformations de l'inconscientに導入されており、1960年に「フロイトの無意識における主体の転覆と欲望の弁証法」（エクリ：選択）として開発されました。サブジェクトの最初のトポロジー。
$は、彼を構成する記号表現によって禁止されている主語の分割を表します。記号<>は、2つの用語間の包含/含意または除外の関係を示します。これは、動詞自体が消えて、純粋な関係の代数的符号の余地を残すバイナリシステムです。オブジェクトaの定義は、何年にもわたって変化します。ここでそれを理解するには、La Relation d'objet et les structure freudiennesの部分オブジェクトに戻り、L'angoisseとL'objet de lapsychanalyseでその分析に取り組む必要があります。しかし、1960年に、ラカンは「主題がその表現できない振動で輝くカットになる」というファンタジーの魅力に言及します。
オブジェクトaは、絶対差で繰り返されるときに対象を生み出す主な記号表現によって操作されるカットの、永久に失われる主要なオブジェクト、残り、または本物であるために同化できない製品になります（L '識別） 。「aが主語のフレームである場合、このフレームは、人生の最も基本的な行為、つまり主語自体が生み出される行為、つまり記号表現の繰り返しのレベルに分類されます。」これは、性的な違いを示すものがないため、象徴的な父方のマークまたは男根のマークです。「男根だけが性の統一です」。オブジェクトaは、部分的なフリブに、さまざまなオブジェクトa、胸、糞便、陰茎、視線、または声、それ自体が架空の置換で捕らえられているオブジェクトによって常に埋められている穴を作成します。ファンタジーを理解するには、オブジェクトaの論理ステータスを判断する必要があります。これは、幾何学的図形を処理するトポロジを介してのみ実行できます。オブジェクトはドライブの側面にあるのですか、それともそれが原因である欲求の側にありますか？それは、身体の一部としての胎盤からの分離から生まれたのでしょうか、それとも、話す存在が主題になるために支払わなければならない費用である、記号表現からの自分からの分裂から生まれたのでしょうか？本当に代替手段はありますか？ラカンは、「欲望と現実」が「正しい面と悪い面」である表面について語っています。しかし、「質感の関係は途切れを伴わない」ので、片側だけのように片側から反対側への通過は目立たない。ファンタジーは、自分がドライブから欲望へ、そして欲望からドライブへと進むことを可能にするかもしれません、
ラカンは高揚と不安の発作の間で振動します：「ファンタジーの論理は、汚損の形式化を扱う論理の最も基本的な原則です」と同時に、その定式化がそうではないため、「論理計算の観点からの疎外」の彼の提示を延期しますまだ準備ができています。その理由は、「真実は欲望に関係している」、「論理学者のようにそれを扱うのが困難になる」ためだったのかもしれません。彼の目的は、「論理ではない論理、私がまだ名前を付けていないまったく新しい論理、最初に開始する必要があるため」を定義することです。シンポジウムのディオティマの性格を利用して、彼は精神分析学のポロス（男性のリソース）の前にアカデミックなペニア（欠如）に言及し、「2つの間のどの時点まで、彼は曖昧さを手放すことができたのか」と疑問に思います。
セミナーは、デカルト座標を中心とした主題の論理の探求に向けてコースをシフトし、次に「性行為」、「セックスの不可能な主観化」、そして歓喜に疑問を投げかけます。
魔女？それとも、それは記号表現の集合体ですか？
ラカンは、分析の終わりの印となる「存在しない」désêtreの概念について詳しく述べています。彼は駄洒落について詳しく述べています。無意識の欲望は「純粋な欲望」であり、dés-espoirのようなdés-êtreは絶望であり、ラテン語のireからのirpasであり、否定のpasではありません。他者の欲望に関連して、通過しなかっただけでなく、繰り返しによる行き詰まり、行き止まり。解釈は、「常にデシルパス（欲望）であり続ける」という無意識の欲求に対する解決策、問題がないため、解釈された欲求に対する解決策、問題を伴うものではありません。ラカンにとって、無意識の欲望の真実に関するこの知識は、本当に解決策であり、分析で提供される問題であり、ヒステリーの満たされていない欲望の解決策であり、「予防された欲望」の解決策です。恐怖症の、または執着の「不可能な欲求」に？それ自体で、オブジェクトは「疎外の真実」を支持します。この真実を発見することは、「論議領界がない」ことを発見することです。なぜなら、現実の何か（象徴化できないために不可能な何か）がそれを回避するからです。
「精神分析の大きな秘密は、性的行為がないことです」と、セクシュアリティだけがあります。これはまったく別のことです。この行為には特定の定義があります。それは、彼が自分自身を刻むチェーンに主題を挿入することを可能にする意味のある倍増を引き起こします。またはそれは署名者の制度を引き上げます。しかし、性差の兆候はなく、女性の性別もありません。男性と女性の間には、「この3番目のオブジェクト、オブジェクトaがあります。そのオブジェクトは、常にスライドする置換機能により、永遠の本質においてそれらを対立させ続けることは不可能です。その後、接続詞の行為で性別として自分自身を刻む対象を仮定することは不可能です。いわゆる異性の主題。」象徴的なレベルでは、「性的な関係はありません」：単に（a + 1）と（a-1）があり、ここで、用語は差をプラスまたはマイナスとしてマークします。男根は「性的統一」であり、1は通約不可能を象徴しています。
ラカンは、マルクスの使用価値と交換価値の分析を使用して、「man-he」（l'homme-il）の理論を開始します。「man-he」はまた、人間の標準であり、マンスタリオン（l'homme-étalon）であり、性の象徴の雄牛と貧しい担い手であり、象徴的な去勢に運命づけられています。彼が去勢によってマークされているように、彼が神であったとしても、彼を保証する他の人がいないので、彼は生き方を知りません。唯一の安全策は、男性的な同性愛に基づく保護社会の構築です。フロイトの第一の大群の父は、おそらくすべての女性を喜ばせているので、「彼の歓喜は殺された」と見ています。そして、全能の男根が循環する場合、それは女性によるものです。「女性は男根を男性間の交換価値として表しています。そして、陰茎の力が去勢の痕跡を残している場合、女性は自分自身を物に変えます-良い。それでも、彼女は「man-she」、l'homme-elleとして行動するためのマスカレードなどのリソースを欠いていません。「彼女は性行為のシステムの外にいる女性として不可解である」または「彼女はこのイデオロギーの外で彼女自身の歓喜の異なる使用法を持っている」。このように、ラカンは、その関係が問題となるだけである可能性がある男女の歓喜の「根本的な異質性」を確立します。彼はここから、20回目のセミナーであるアンコールにつながる振り返りを始めます。女性は自分自身を物に変えます-良い。それでも、彼女は「man-she」、l'homme-elleとして行動するためのマスカレードなどのリソースを欠いていません。「彼女は性行為のシステムの外にいる女性として不可解である」または「彼女はこのイデオロギーの外で彼女自身の歓喜の異なる使用法を持っている」。このように、ラカンは、その関係が問題となるだけである可能性がある男女の歓喜の「根本的な異質性」を確立します。彼はここから、20回目のセミナーであるアンコールにつながる振り返りを始めます。ラカンは、その関係が問題となる可能性があるだけの男女の歓喜の「根本的な異質性」を確立します。彼はここから、20回目のセミナーであるアンコールにつながる振り返りを始めます。ラカンは、その関係が問題となる可能性があるだけの男女の歓喜の「根本的な異質性」を確立します。彼はここから、20回目のセミナーであるアンコールにつながる振り返りを始めます。
1967-1968Leséminaire、Livre XV：L'acte精神分析。
フランス語：未発表。
英語：未発表。
La logique du fantasmeは、「性的行為」はないと述べているので、Lacanは、行為であるl'acteと単なる行為であるagirの違いに疑問を投げかけています。愛を作ることは行動であり、怒りを失い、結婚することは行動であり、行動を起こさないことです。なぜなら、他者への繰り返しと碑文を伴うコミットメントと認識があるからです。記号表現はまもなく登場します。聖ヨハネの「初めは言葉でした」とゲーテの「初めは行動でした」の間に矛盾はありませんでした。次に、ラカンは「性行為が真実の関係に還元できない」と主張します。愛はそれ自体が純粋に自己陶酔的であるため、
精神分析におけるさまざまな種類の行為に関しては、創設行為があります。以前は、無意識の影響が存在していましたが、誰もそれらが存在することを知りませんでした。分析への入り口とアナリストになるという事実があります。それは決定とコミットメントです。分析者の側では、スリップと失敗があり、それがラカンにエロージュ・デ・ラ・コネリー、賞賛の愚かさを与えるように導きます。分析では、「真実であるものを真実にレンダリングし、愚かであるものを愚かにする」という差し止め命令に単純に答えることはほとんど不可能です。愚かさの」パッセージ・ア・ラクテと「演技」は、悲惨な穴を埋めるが、過去を言葉で覚えるのではなく、再現してください。アナリストの側では、「転移の操作以外には、精神分析的行為はありません」。アナリストがアナリストの機能に移行するためには、アナリストは、知っていると思われる主体の支持者のふりをしながら、「主体が知っているはずのことは元に戻されます。」さらに、最終的には、アナリストは「オブジェクトaで表される操作の無駄にすぎない」ことを受け入れる必要があります。これにより、真実の効果が生まれます。アナリストの立場は支持できず、これが彼が「分析行為自体に関して最も暴力的な誤解、メコネサンス」に反対する理由です。その上、désêtreを経験するアナリストは、アナリストになると、彼は別の知っているはずの主題のために回復することを余儀なくされていること。したがって、送信は完了し、パス自体とは大きく異なります。「対象の行為への設定」と「無意識の行為への設定」という精神分析的行為は、主人公が最終的にゴミの一部として落ちる悲劇のようなものです。
「精神分析の始まりは転移である」。これは、2つのパートナー間で、知っていると思われる主体が3番目の役割を果たし、「転移で起こるすべてが明確に表現されるピボット」として機能するためです。このピボットは、それによって開始された談話で導入されたシニフィアンであり、アナリストの人とは何の関係もない、アナリストから切り離されたかのような形成です。欲望にかかわるのは「知らない人を知識の枠組みに導く文字の連鎖」です。欲望のグラフは依然として分析を導きますが、同一性は、知っていると思われる主題の数学と、「記号表現者との自由な関係としての主題の純粋な角度」を提示するプラトンのシンポジウムのアガルマとの間に主張されます。
ラカンは、アナリストからアナリストへの通路に関して、「定数がアガルマである方程式」（この用語は、オブジェクトaと男根の間の一種の妥協点）を確立したいと考えています。「機能において分析者を支持するという欲求が解決されると、分析者はもはやそのような欲求の可能性を排除することを望まなくなり、残りは彼の分裂を決定する限り、彼を彼のファンタジーから脱落させ、彼を貧しくします主題として。」ラカンは、しばしば気づかれる憂鬱な立場を、分析の終わりとして、デゼトルと「主観的な貧困」の観点から解釈します。「被験者は、誰もが現実への扉を開くという幻想から生まれる自信のシンクを見る」。被験者は、欲望の把握はデゼトルの把握に他ならないことに気づきます。「このデセットで明らかにされているのは、知っていると思われる主体の本質的でない性質です。アナリストになることは、たとえそれがアナリストになることを意味するとしても、欲望の本質のアガルマに専念しています。主体は純粋な意味関係の記号表現であるため、通常の記号表現に還元されます。」それでは、ファンタジーを通過するということは、ドライブに向かうことを意味するのでしょうか、それとも意味者との対立に向かうことを意味するのでしょうか？したがって、ラカンは次のように答えます。「欲望の存在は、唯一の欠如が刻まれている唯一の側面、つまりアガルマを支持する側によって形成されたストリップで、結び目から生まれ変わる知識の存在と出会います。」アガルマは、その他（A）に配置されるバーの記号になります。（-Φ）のギャップはその他で開きます。
スラヴォイ・ジゼクは、「ここで、愛する人の位置を定義する避けられない行き詰まりを見つけます。他の人は私の中に何かを見て、私から何かを求めていますが、私が持っていないものを彼に与えることはできません-またはラカンが言うように、そこに愛する人が持っているものと愛する人に欠けているものとの間に関係はありません。愛する人がこの行き詰まりから逃れる唯一の方法は、愛する人に向かって手を伸ばし、愛を返すこと、つまり、比喩的に交換することです。ジェスチャー、愛する人のステータスのための愛する人としての彼のステータスこの逆転は主観化のポイントを指定します：愛の対象はそれが愛の呼びかけに答える瞬間に主題に変わりますそしてそれはこの逆転によってのみです真の愛が現れること：私は他のアガルマに単に魅了されたときではなく、本当に恋をしています、 しかし、私がもう一方を経験するとき、愛の対象は、弱くて失われ、「それ」を欠いているように、そして私の愛はそれでもなおこの喪失を乗り越えます。」
1968-1969Leséminaire、Livre XVI：D'unAutreàl'autre。
フランス語：（texteétabliparJacques-AlainMiller）、パリ：Seuil、2006年。
英語：未発表。
ラカンは、1968年5月に続く大学の危機に立ち向かう。「精神分析を知識として明確に表現できず、そのように教えることができなければ、それは知識の問題である学界には存在しない」。彼は非概念化を拒否します：構造は本物です。ラカンは、オブジェクトaから他への通過、および他からオブジェクトaへの通過を処理し、パスカル、マルクス、およびl、切れ目のない線、L '識別の特性ユニテア、およびaの間のリンクの論理を分析して組み合わせます。
それに、彼は女性の歓喜（それは他の場所なのか、それとも物の場所なのか）、男根のヌルビキテ、非遍在性、歓喜は本物であるが象徴することはできないことを証言する、ファルスのシステムが不足しているか外部にあるシンボル、および欲望のグラフの繰り返し。
マルクスは剰余価値、プラス価値を発明し、彼、ラカンはオブジェクトを発明しました。彼は、オブジェクトaを分離するためにプラス・ド・ジュワールを構築しようとしていると主張し、剰余価値との相同性によってそうします。ファンタジーの数学である$ <> aでは、「aの存在は、プラス・ド・ジュワール、余剰ジュイサンスです。*告発のレベルでは、倒錯は「裸の形での余剰ジュイサンス」を明らかにします。余剰歓喜と剰余価値の間は、オブジェクトaの機能です。倒錯者は、他者に恩返しをすることによって、神に真の豊かさを与えました。したがって、aはAにあります（小さい他者は大きい他者にあります）。ただし、aはAに穴を開けます。Jouissanceは除外され、Otherはそれが知られている場所であり、aはそれから生じる落下の影響です。したがって、aからAに移動した後、Aからaに移動する必要があります。 。
「私は主に死んだ神について話します。おそらく、死んだフロイトとの関係から自分自身をよりよく解放するためです。」それでも、ル・パリでは、パスカルは神の存在の問題を提起します。唯一の本当の質問は主題のそれです：私は存在しますか？私は存在しますか？パスカルにとって危機に瀕している「人生は何もない」というのは、余剰の喜びです。喪失の仮定は、身体とその喜びの間にギャップ、béanceを作成します。これは、他者の分野における、失われたオブジェクトであるオブジェクトaの効果です。パスカルにとって、中心点は「無限の何もない」です。唯一の救いは恵みです。神の憐れみは神の正義よりも大きいからです。恵みは、さまざまな形で他者の欲望に近づくことを可能にします：「私はあなたが欲しいものを自分自身に尋ねます」、次に「私はあなたにあなたが欲しいものを尋ねます」、それは「Thy Will be Done！
Slavoj Zizekは、余剰歓喜（ラカンインク15）を次のように適切に説明しています。
「したがって、カフェインを含まないダイエットコーラの場合、私たちはNothingness自体を飲みます。これは、事実上単なるボイドのエンベロープであるプロパティの純粋な類似性です。この例は、3つの概念間の固有のリンクを明白にします：マルクシストのそれ余剰価値、余剰の喜びとしてのラカニアのオブジェのそれ、そしてずっと前にフロイトによって認識された超自我の逆説：あなたがコーラを飲むほど、あなたは喉が渇きます;あなたが持っているより多くの利益、あなたはもっと欲しいです; supergoコマンドに従えば、罪を犯します。3つのケースすべてで、バランスの取れた交換のロジックは、「与えるほど、借りが多い（または消費者向けバージョン」）という過度のロジックを支持して混乱します。購入すればするほど、より多くを費やす必要があります」）、愛のパラドックスとは正反対のパラドックスについて、 ジュリエットがロミオに不滅の言葉を書いたように、「私が与えるほど、私はより多くを持っています」。
この摂動の鍵は、余剰の歓喜であり、ある種の湾曲した空間に存在する（またはむしろ主張する）オブジェクトであり、近づくほど、把握しにくくなります（または、所有するようになります）。 、不足が大きいほど）。
おそらく、性的な違いは予想外の方法でここに入ります：スーパーゴが男性でより強い理由は、象徴的な法の鎮静化機能に対するこの過剰な歓喜に強く関係しているのは女性ではなく男性であるためです。父なる機能に関しては、鎮静化する象徴法と過度の超越的差止命令との間の反対は、すべての女性を楽しむことを許された父なる神（父なる象徴的権威）と「原始の父」との間の反対である。このレイピストの「原始的な父親」は男性（強迫観念）であり、女性的（ヒステリック）ではなく、ファンタジーです。象徴的な秩序への統合に耐えることができるのは、この統合が、楽しむための無条件のスーパーゴーの差し止め命令に具体化された制限のない過度の歓喜のファンタジーへの隠された言及によって支えられている場合にのみです。そして常に限界を強制します。象徴的な秩序への統合が超自我の例外によって支えられているのは人間です。」
*ブルース・フィンクは、テレビ（ニューヨーク：ノートン、1989年）で「克服」としてレンダリングされたプラス・ド・ジュワールの翻訳が不十分であると述べています。plus-de-jouirはplus-value（マルクスの剰余価値）に基づいているため、余剰、追加、または補足の歓喜を意味します。plusは、Encore、Moreの意味で理解する必要があります。彼はで『克服』や快楽によって『圧倒』という、より官能的な感覚は、他のjouissanceに関連している」ことを強調しています。
1969年から1970年ルの神学校、リーヴルXVII：L'envers・デ・ラ・psychanalyseを
フランス語：（texteétabliパージャック-Alain Miller）、パリ：Seuil、1991年。
英語：Book XVII：The Other Side of Psychoanalysis（Jacques-Alain Millerが編集）、ニューヨーク：Norton、2006年。
ラカンは、間主観的な関係を規制する4つの実行可能なタイプの社会的絆を特定します。象徴的なネットワークのアーティキュレーションである4つのディスコースは、劇的な反省を通して構造化されます。マスターとスレーブ。マルクス; 知識、真実、そして喜び。すべての愛-またはすべての歓喜-であり、その殺人が死んだ父の愛を生み出すトーテムとタブーの父、ラカンが最初の理想化を主宰する父-愛に値するもの-とマスターの談話に入り、それによって最初から去勢されます。ラカンにとって、「父親の死は最高の歓喜の鍵であり、後に近親相姦の目的として母親と同一視された」。Psychoanalyisは、「母親と一緒に寝る」という命題に基づいて構築されていません。しかし、原初の歓喜としての父親の死について。」本当の父親は生物学的現実の父親ではなく、「不可能な現実」を支持する彼である。エディプスコンプレックスから、ラカンは父親の比喩と名前の名前を保存するだけである。 the-「知識が真実として機能する場所に位置する父。精神分析は法を強化します。」
このセミナーの目新しさは、ヒステリーの復活であり、ドラとラベルブーシュエール-美しい口がさまよう-フロイトによって分析され、「治療の方向性と権力の原則」（エクリ：選択）。3つの質問：歓喜と満たされていない欲求への欲求との関係。男を作るヒステリック-faitl'hommeまたはマスター-彼女は彼を「知りたいという欲求によって促された男」として構築します。アナリストが構造レベルで導入する「ダイコースのヒステリック化」としての治療法の新しい概念。これは、女性に起因する手つかずのヒステリーを残します-性的な違いが公然と作用する唯一の談話です。去勢は、「女性の剥奪」であり、「
数学に関しては、「基本的な開始関係」は仮説として機能します
。S1は「他者のフィールドのマークされた円」を指し、それはマスターシニフィアンです。S2は、「談話の状態を陳述の状態として決定したい」場所にある「すでにそこにある記号表現のバッテリー」、つまり知識-サヴォアです。S1は、知識のネットワークに準拠する意味のあるバッテリーで機能します。
は主題であり、それを表す途切れのない線（trait unaire）でマークされており、この主題の場所ではない生きている個人とは異なります。オブジェクトa、オブジェクトの無駄、またはサブジェクトの元の分割が行われたときに発生したオブジェクトの損失を追加します-欲望の原因であるオブジェクト：plus-de-jouir。
それは他の3つが由来する基本的な談話です。支配的な位置は、他のすべての記号表現S2の主語Sを表すマスター記号表現S1によって占められます。この意味のある操作では、余剰があります：オブジェクトa。合計のすべての試みは失敗する運命にあります。この談話は主題の分割を覆い隠し、マスターとスレーブの弁証法の構造を示しています。マスターS1は、スレーブS2を機能させるエージェントです。その結果、マスターが適切に処理するのに苦労する余剰のオブジェクトaが生成されます。
大学の談話：
それは前の談話の反時計回りの四分の一回転によって引き起こされます。支配的な地位は知識、つまりサヴォアによって占められています。習得の試みは、中立的な知識を与える努力の背後にあることが追跡できます。つまり、知識が伝達される相手の支配です。この覇権は、科学の近代性に表れています。
ヒステリーの言説：
それは主人の談話の時計回りの四分の一回転によってもたらされます。それは単に「ヒステリックによって発せられるもの」ではなく、あらゆる主題が刻まれているかもしれないある種のアーティキュレーションです。分割された被験者、S、症状は、ポールポジションにあります。この談話は知識を指し示しています。「治療には、人工的な条件によるヒステリーの言説の構造的導入が含まれます」：アナリストはアナリストの言説をヒステリックにします。
アナリストの談話：
それは、フロイトが彼のヒステリー患者の談話に解釈的なターンを与えることによって精神分析を開発するのと同じ方法で、ヒステリーの談話の4分の1ターンによって生成されます。エージェント（アナリスト）の位置は、オブジェクトaによって占有されます。アナリストがアナリストの欲求の原因になります。この言説は主人の言説の逆であるが、精神分析を本質的に破壊的な慣行にし、支配と習得の試みを弱体化させるのだろうか？
いずれにせよ、この代数は固定されている位置に関係しています。
セミナーの終わりに、ラカンは「インポッシブル」と「インポッシブル」の間の対立を追加します-インポッシブル：「不可能は、スピーチがオブジェクトのように腐肉のように機能する現実です」と「インポッシブルは真実を保護します」。彼は、Wo Es War、sol Ich werdenの新しい翻訳で、仕事はアナリストのためであり、「plus-de-jouirはあなたのためです」と述べています。 、私、精神分析的行為を発する限り、私は来なければなりません。」
第二次世界大戦後にラカンが分析した3人のコンゴ人の話があります。「彼らの無意識はエディプスコンプレックスの規則に従って機能しました。植民地化の法則と同時に彼らに売られたのは無意識でした。エキゾチックです。マスターの言説の形式、帝国主義資本主義の前の回帰。」資本主義的または帝国主義的言説は、マスターの言説の変容のみに言及されていますか？
精神分析のエンバーズに関しては、それが箔として機能するとき、それは時々マスターの談話です。メビウスの帯に続いて、間違った側と正しい側を分離できない場所にある知識（分析的談話）として、それは無意識の談話である場合があります。「エンバーは真実に共感している。人はエンバーに移動するが、エンバーは正しい側面を説明していない。
「Radiophonie」（Autresécrits）は、L'envers ...が行われている間に録音されたインタビューです。その中でラカンは、「言語が無意識の状態であるならば、無意識は言語学の状態である」と宣言している。フロイトは、患者の言葉、冗談、舌の滑りに固執するとき、ソシュールとプラハサークルを予期し、夢の生成における凝縮と変位の重要性を明らかにします。無意識とは、「対象は彼の言うことを知っている人ではないという事実です。無意識を明確に表現する人は誰でも、それはそれであるか、何もないと言います」。言語学は、無意識、オブジェクト、分析行為の焦点、つまりあらゆる行為に影響を与えるものを空白のままにするため、無意識を保持しません。「」精神分析によって与えられた用語でそれ自体を定義する談話だけが主題を他のものとして明らかにしますが、科学は主題をマスターにすることによって彼を隠します、それで彼に道を譲る欲求は救済なしで私のために主題を妨げます。ラカンの言説における一つの神話：フロイトのエディプスコンプレックス。「精神分析学においても、無意識の中においても、男性は女性について何も知らず、女性は男性について何も知らない。男根は、性的なものが意味者の情熱になるという神話のポイントを象徴しています。」しかし、無意識の談話の代数式はありません。「...無意識は、次のように提示された場合にのみ維持される知識を指定する比喩的な用語にすぎません。不可能なので、それは本物であることによって一致することができます-本当の談話。」一方、科学は、主題をマスターにすることによって彼を隠しているので、彼に道を譲る欲求は、救済なしで私のために主題を妨げます。」ラカンの言説には、フロイトのエディプスコンプレックスという唯一の神話があります。無意識のように、男性は女性について何も知らず、女性は男性について何も知りません。男根は、性的なものが意味者の情熱になるという神話のポイントを象徴しています。」しかし、無意識の談話の代数式はありません。「...無意識は、次のように提示された場合にのみ維持される知識を指定する比喩的な用語にすぎません。不可能なので、それは本物であることによって一致することができます-本当の談話。」一方、科学は、主題をマスターにすることによって彼を隠しているので、彼に道を譲る欲求は、救済なしで私のために主題を妨げます。」ラカンの言説には、フロイトのエディプスコンプレックスという唯一の神話があります。無意識のように、男性は女性について何も知らず、女性は男性について何も知りません。男根は、性的なものが意味者の情熱になるという神話のポイントを象徴しています。」しかし、無意識の談話の代数式はありません。「...無意識は、次のように提示された場合にのみ維持される知識を指定する比喩的な用語にすぎません。不可能なので、それは本物であることによって一致することができます-本当の談話。」ラカンの言説には、フロイトのエディプスコンプレックスという神話が1つだけあります。「精神分析学においても、無意識においても、男性は女性について何も知らず、女性は男性について何も知らない。男根は、性的なものが象徴者の情熱になるという神話の要点を象徴している。」しかし、無意識の言説の代数式はありません。「...無意識は、不可能として提示された場合にのみ維持される知識を指定する比喩的な用語にすぎないため、現実の言説に準拠することができます。」ラカンの言説には、フロイトのエディプスコンプレックスという神話が1つだけあります。「精神分析学においても、無意識においても、男性は女性について何も知らず、女性は男性について何も知らない。男根は、性的なものが象徴者の情熱になるという神話の要点を象徴している。」しかし、無意識の言説の代数式はありません。「...無意識は、不可能として提示された場合にのみ維持される知識を指定する比喩的な用語にすぎないため、現実の言説に準拠することができます。」
☆
1965-1966 Le séminaire, Livre XIII: L'objet de la psychanalyse.
French: unpublished.
English: unpublished.
The theme of the subject divided between knowledge and truth is raised throughout the seminar. Lacan responds to the alternative between the mathematical model and metaphor by stating that "topology is not a metaphor, but a rigorous montage with the objet a." Thus the use of four mathemes: the disk with a hole, the Moebius strip, the torus and the Klein bottle. "The hole of the lack of the objet a would be located at the intersection of the fields of truth and knowledge": such is the conribution of psychoanalysis. It can therefore question science as to the truth whose contingency is missed or forgotten; the same happens with religion. Lacan both splits and unites his audience in two categories: "those who use my word for analytic purposes," and "those who prove that it can be followed in all its coherence and rigor, that it fits in a structure valid even outside its present practice." He also distinguishes between the analyst who at the moment of knowledge is divided (and he knows it), and the status of the subject-supposed-to-know (the subject of science) who restores the prestige of méconnaissance by thinking that he is uniting knowledge and subject.
Lacan goes to the Graph of Desire and relates them to his topology. The objet a is situated on four sides:
1. the demand of the Other (objet a is feces)
2. the demand on the part of the Other (objet a is the breast)
3. desire on the part of the Other (objet a is the gaze)
4. desire of the Other (objet a is the voice)
In this perspective he gives an account of his lectures in the United States, organized by Roman Jakobson, notably "Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever," at Johns Hopkins University. Michel Foucault talks about Velasquez's Las Meninas. His address allows Lacan to conjure his theory of the painting as "a trap for the gaze," a gaze in which what falls is objet a. The little girl is the slit in the perspective and the vanishing point, the hidden center of the painting, and "in this gap, béance where there is nothing to see, it is impossible to recognize the structure of the objets a: underneath the Infanta's dresses, 'it looks at me,' while the eye is made not to see..." Georges Bataille's Histoire de l'oeil is quoted as a text that establishes a connection among all the objets a in their rapport to the feminine sexual organ. Therefore, the phallus is the sign that occupies the place of this gap, the impossible or untenable real. This entails a reshaping of the unconscious around language and the gaze (excluded by Freud). Lacan goes back to to the Freudian dimension of desire and of the subject whose foundation is castration. The vagina, the feminine sexual organ, becomes the objet a, which fascinates and leads to ruin unless there is the screen of the phallus, even under the form of - Φ. In the end, the penis, as a manifestation that is seen, hardly hides the presence of an objet a that would be an enigmatic - a.
The gaze, it should be noted, is not found on the side of the subject, but on that of the object. "It marks the point in the object (the picture) from which the viewing subject is already gazed at" (Slavoj Zizek). The gaze is a spot in the picture, which does not warrant the presence of the subject and by blurring its visibility, introduces a split in the rapport between the object and the subject: the latter cannot see the picture at the point from which it is gazing at him. Zizek brings out Psycho, where Norman Bates' house is rendered uncanny because Hitchcok's viewpoint switches from the house coming closer (as seen by the approaching woman) to the same woman coming closer (as seen from the house), giving the anxious impression that the house is gazing at her.
1966-1967 Le séminaire, Livre XIV: La logique du fantasme.
French: unpublished.
English: unpublished.
Lacan stresses the importance of the signifying structure in fantasy. He takes as his starting point the matheme $, which is the logical articulation of fantasy. The matheme was already introduced in Les formations de l'inconscient, in the graphs of desire, and was later developed in 1960 in "The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious" (Écrits: A Selection) as the first topology of the subject.
$ represents the division of the subject barred by the signifier that constitutes him. The sign <> enunciates the relation either of inclusion/implication, or of exclusion between the two terms. It's a binary system where the verb as such disappears to leave room for the algebraic sign of a pure relation. Definitions of objet a will vary over the years; to understand it here, one should go back to the part object of La relation d'objet et les structures freudiennes, and then address its analysis in L'angoisse and L'objet de la psychanalyse. In 1960, however, Lacan mentions the fascination of the fantasy in which "the subject becomes the cut that makes shine in its inexpressible oscillation".
The objet a would be the primal object, forever lost, the remainder or the product, which cannot be assimilated because it is real, of the cut operated by the primal signifier engendering the subject when it repeats itself in absolute difference (L'identification). "If a is the frame of the subject, this frame falls at the level of the most fundamental act of life, the act in which the subject as such is engendered, i.e the repetition of the signifier." This is the symbolic paternal mark or the phallic mark since there is no signifier of sexual difference: "The phallus alone is the sex-unity." The objet a creates a hole constantly filled, in the partial frives, by the different objets a, the breast, feces, the penis, the gaze or the voice, objects that are in themselves caught in imaginary substitutions. To understand fantasy, one should try to determine the logical status of objet a, which can only be accomplished by way of a topology dealing with gemetrical figures. Is objet a situated on the side of the drive or of desire of which it is the cause? Is it born out of the separation from the placenta as a part of the body proper or from the division from oneself from the signifier, the cost that the speaking being has to pay to become a subject? Is there really an alternative? Lacan talks of a surface where "desire and reality" are "the right and the wrong sides"; however, the passage from one side to the other is unnoticeable, as if there were only one side, because "the relation of texture does not entail any break." Might the fantasy allow oneself to go from the drive to desire and from desire to the drive, to link them or to disjoint them?
Lacan oscillates between exaltation and bouts of anxiety: "The logic of fantasy is the most fundamental principle of any logic that deals with formalizing defiles," and at the same time defers his presentation of "alienation in terms logical calculation" because its formulation is not yet ready. The reason might have been that "truth is related to desire," which "creates difficulties for handling it like logicians do." His aim is to define "a logic that is not a logic, an entirely new logic that I have not named yet, for it needs to be instituted first." Using the character of Diotima from The Symposium, he mentions academic Penia (the lack) before psychoanalytic Poros (male resource) and wonders "up to what point, between the two, he could let the obscurity go."
The seminar shifts its course toward the search for a logic of the subject around the Cartesian cogito, then toward "the sexual act," questioning "the impossible subjectivization of sex," and of jouissance.
The multiple transformations of Descartes' cogito ergo sum (either I think or I am"; "either I don't think or I am not"; "I am where I don't think," or "I think where I am not") end with a play of words: Cogito ergo es. The Latin es (you are) marks the fundamental dependency on the Other and raises the problem of the passage from objet a to the Other or from the Other to objet a. Applied to desire, "I desire you" means "I implicate you in my fundamental fantasy" as objet a. Applied to love, "You are not, therefore I am not"; "You are nothing but what I am"; "You are the nothing that I am." Now, in German, Es is the id, defined as the "non-I," the impersonal id, is it the reservoir of drives? Is it the cauldron (with a hole in it) of Freud's witches? Or is it an aggregate of signifiers?
Lacan elaborates on the notion of "unbeing," désêtre, which would become the mark of the end of analysis. He elaborates on puns: the unconscious desire is "pure desire," dés-être like dés-espoir, despair, is an irpas, from the Latin ire, to go and the negation pas, not, which is an impassé, something that had not gone through, linked to the desire of the Other, but also an impasse, a dead end, due to repetition. The interpretation does not entail any solution, issue, to the interpreted desire because there is no solution, issue, to the unconscious desire that "will always remain a désirpas(desirenot)." For lacan, is this knowledge of the truth of the unconscious desire really the solution, issue to be offered in analysis, the solution to the unfulfilled desire" of hysteria, to the "prevented desire" of phobia, or to the "impossible desire" of obsession? By itself, the objet a upholds "the truth of alienation"; to discover this truth is to discover that "there is no universe of discourse" because something real (something impossible because not symbolizable) eludes it.
"The big secret of psychoanalysis is that there is no sexual act," all there is is sexuality, a very different thing. The act has a specific definition: it provokes a signifying doubling that allows for an insertion of the subject in a chain in which he inscribes himself. Or it raises the institution of the signifier. But there is no signifier of sexual difference and none of the feminine sex either. Between man and woman "there is this third object, objet a, whose always sliding function of substitution makes it impossible to keep them opposed in whatever eternal essence. It is impossible then to posit a subject inscribing himself as sexed in the act of conjunction to the subject of what is called the opposite sex." At the symbolic level, "there is no sexual rapport": there is merely (a + 1) and (a - 1), where a term marks the difference as a plus or a a minus. The phallus is "the sex-unity": the 1 symbolizes the incommensurable.
Lacan uses Marx's analyses of use value and exchange value, and starts his theory of "man-he" (l'homme-il). The "man-he" is also the man-standard and the man-stallion (l'homme-étalon), as well as the bull and the poor bearer of the symbol of sex, doomed to symbolic castration. He does not know how to live since there is no Other to guarantee him, not even if he were God, marked as he is by castration. The only safeguard is the construction of a protective society based on masculine homosexuality. The Father of Freud's primal horde, because he supposedly jouis all women, sees "his jouissance killed." Then, if the almighty phallus circulates, it is due to women. "Woman represents the phallus as an exchange value among men; and, if the power of the penis bears the mark of castration, it is because fictitiously she becomes what is enjoyed, ce dont on jouit, and circulates as an object of jouissance: she is the locus of transference of this jouissance value" represented by the phallus. Through her identification to the use value embodied in the phallus, woman transforms herself into an object-good. Yet, she does not lack resouirces, such as masquerade, to act as "man-she," l'homme-elle. "She is inexpugnable as a woman precisely outside the system of the sexual act," or "she has a different use of her own jouissance outside this ideology." Thus, Lacan establishes "the radical heterogeneity" of the jouissance of the two sexes whose rapport could only be problematic. He begins here a reflection that will lead him to Encore, the twentieth seminar.
1967-1968 Le séminaire, Livre XV: L'acte psychanalytique.
French: unpublished.
English: unpublished.
Since La logique du fantasme, where he states that there is not "sexual act," Lacan questions the difference between the act, l'acte and a mere action, agir. To make love would be an action, un agir, and to get married an act, un acte, because there is a commitment and a recognition, which entail repetition and the inscription in the Other. The signifier will appear soon: the absence of contradiction between Saint John's "In the beginning was the Word," and Goethe's "In the beginning was the action." Lacan then asserts "the irreducibility of the sexual act to any truthful relation." Since love is itself purely narcissistic, a social pact is what remains of a possible rapport between the sexes.
As to the different types of acts in psychoanalysis, there is the founding act: before, the effects of the unconscious existed, but nobody knew that they existed. There is the entrance into analysis and the fact of becoming an analyst, which are decisions and commitments. On the side of the analysand, there are slips and failures, which lead Lacan to give an Éloge de la connerie, Praise of Folly. In analysis it is almost impossible to answer simply to the injunction "render unto truth the things that are truth's and unto folly the things that are folly's," because the two overlap and then one finds "the folly of truth even more often than the truth of folly." The passage à l'acte and the "acting out" are activities that, although they fill a distressing hole, reproduce the past instead of remembering it in words. On the side of the analyst, "outside the manipulation of transference, there is no psychoanalytic act." In order for the analysand to move to the function of analyst, the latter - while pretending to be the upholder of the subject-supposed-to-know - must accept being "reduced to the function of cause of a process in which the subject-supposed-to-know is undone." Moreover, in the end the analyst must accept to be "nothing more than a waste of the operation represented by the objet a," which will produce an effect of truth. The position of the analyst is untenable, and this is why he opposes "the most violent misconstruction, méconnaissance, as to the analytic act itself." Besides, the analysand who experiences désêtre discovers, when becoming an analyst, that he is forced to restore for another the subject-supposed-to-know. The transmission would thus be compleed, very different from the passe itself. The psychoanalytic act, a "setting into act of the subject" and a "setting into act of the unconscious," is like a tragedy where the hero falls in the end as a piece of trash.
"In the beginning of psychoanalysis is transference," without any intersubjectivity, because between the two partners the subject-supposed-to-know acts as a third, as "the pivot from where everything that goes on in transference is articulated." This pivot is the signifier introduced in the discourse instituted by it, a formation as though detached from the analysand, which has nothing to do with the analyst's person. It is "a chain of letters that leads the not-known to frame knowledge," which concerns desire. The Graph of Desire still guides the analysis but an identity is asserted between the matheme of the subject-supposed-to-know and the agalma of Plato's The Symposium, which presents "the pure angle of the subject as the free rapport to the signifier, a signifier from which both the desire of knowledge and the desire of the Other are isolated."
Lacan wants to establish, as to the passage from the analysand to the analyst, "an eaquation whose constant is the agalma" (this term being a sort of compromise between objet a and the phallus). Once "the desire that, in its functionning, uphelds the analysand has been resolved, the analysand no longer wants to remove the possibility of such desire, the remainder which, insofar as it determines his division, makes him fall from his fantasy and destitutes him as subject." Lacan interprets the depressive position often noticed as the end of the analysis in terms of désêtre and "subjective destitution. "The subject sees its assurance sink, a self-assurance that comes from the fantasy in which everybody's opening onto the real is constituted." The subject realizes that the grasp of desire is nothing other than that of a désêtre. "In this désêtre what is unveiled is the nonessential nature of the subject-supposed-to-know; the analyst-to-be is dedicated to the agalma of the essence of desire, even if it means that the analyst-to-be has to be reduced to an ordinary signifier, since the subject is the signifier of the pure signifying relation." Does going through the fantasy, then, mean going toward the drive or toward a confrontation with the signifier? Thus Lacan answers: "The being of desire meets the being of knowledge to be reborn from their knot in a strip formed by the only side on which only one lack is inscribed, that which upholds the agalma." The agalmabecomes the signifier of the bar that is put on the Other (A); the gap of (- Φ) opens in the Other; and the (a) falls from the Other.
Slavoj Zizek argues that "here we find the inescapable deadlock that defines the position of the loved one: the other sees something in me and wants something from me, but I cannot give him what I do not possess - or as Lacan puts it, there is no rapport between what the loved one possesses and what the loving one lacks. The only way for the loved one to escape this deadlock is to stretch out his hand toward the loving one and to return love, that is to exchange, in a metaphorical gesture, his status as the loved one for the status of the loving one. This reversal designates the point of subjectivization: the object of love changes into the subject the moment it answers the call of love. And it is only by way of this reversal that a genuine love emerges: I am truly in love not when I am simply fascinated by the agalma in the other, but when I experience the other, the object of love, as frail and lost, as lacking 'it', and my love none the less survives this loss."
1968-1969 Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'autre.
French: (texte établi par Jacques-Alain Miller), Paris: Seuil, 2006.
English: unpublished.
Lacan takes a stand in the crisis of the university that follows May 1968: "If psychoanalysis cannot be articulated as a knowledge and taught as such, it has no place in Academia, where it is only a matter of knowledge." He rejects nonconceptualization: structure is the real. Dealing with the passage from objet a to the Other and from the Other to objet a, Lacan analyzes and combines Pascal, Marx and the logic of the link between l, the unbroken line, the trait unitaire of L'identification and a as follows:
To that, he adds questions on feminine jouissance (is it the place of the Other or of the Thing?), on the nullibiquité, non-ubiquitousness, of the phallus that testifies that jouissance is real but cannot be symbolized, on the Phallus as a symbol that is lacking or outside system, and the repetition of the Graphs of Desire.
Marx invented surplus-value, plus-value, and he, Lacan, invented the objet a. He asserts that he is going to construct the plus-de-jouir so as to isolate the objet a, he will do so by homology with surplus-value. In the matheme of fantasy, $<>a, "the being of a is the plus-de-jouir, surplus-jouissance.* At the level of the enunciation, perversion reveals "surplus-jouissance in its bare form." The rapport between surplus-jouissance and surplus-value is the function of the objet a. The perverse has given to God his true plenitude by giving a back to the Other. Hence, a is in A (the small other is in the big Other); however, a makes a hole in A. Jouissance is excluded, the Other is the place where it is known, a is the effect of fall that results from it. So, after going from a to A, one must go from A to a.
"I mainly talk about a dead God, maybe in order to better free myself from my relation to a dead Freud." Yet, in Le Pari, Pascal raises the question of the existence of God. The only true question is that of the subject: Does I exist? Do I exist? "The nothing that life is," which is at stake for Pascal, is the surplus-jouissance. The assumption of the loss creates the gap, béance, between the body and its jouissance: such is the effect of the objet a, the lost object, in the field of the Other. For Pascal, the central point is "the infinite nothing"; the only salvation is grace, for God's mercy is bigger than His justice. Grace allows proximity to the desire of the Other in its various forms: "I ask myself what you want," then "I ask you what you want," which leads to "Thy Will be Done!" However, this sentence is uttered to a faceless Other. God's will, for not being our will, comes to lack; then, for lack of God, we are left with the Father as dead, the Father as a name (the pivot of discourse) and as the rapport of jouissance to castration. "The Name-of-the-Father is a rift that remains wide open in my discourse, it is only known through an act of faith: there is no Incarnation in the place of the Other."
Slavoj Zizek aptly describes surplus-jouissance (lacanian ink 15) as follows:
"So in the case of the caffeine-free diet Coke, we drink the Nothingness itself, the pure semblance of a property that is effectively merely an envelope of a void. This example makes palpable the inherent link between three notions: that of the Marxist surplus-value, that of the Lacanian objet a as surplus-jouissance, and the paradox of the superego, perceived long ago by Freud: the more you drink Coke, the more you are thirsty; the more profit you have , the more you want; the more you obey the supergo command, the more you are guilty. In all three cases, the logic of balanced exchange is perturbed in favor of an excessive logic of "the more you give, the more you owe (or the consumerist version "the more you buy, the more you have to spend"), of the paradox which is the very opposite of the paradox of love where, as Juliet put in her immortal words to Romeo, 'the more I give, the more I have'.
The key to this perturbation is the surplus-jouissance, the objet a which exists (or rather insists) in a kind of curved space in which, the more you approach it, the more it eludes your grasp (or, the more you possess it, the greater the lack).
Perhaps, sexual difference enters here in an unexpected way: the reason why the supergo is stronger in man is that it is man, not woman, who is intensely related to this excess of the surplus-jouissance over the pacifying functionning of the symbolic Law. In terms of the paternal function, the opposition between the pacifying symbolic Law and the excessive supergo injunction is the one between the Name-of-the-Father (the paternal symbolic authority) and the "primordial father," allowed to enjoy all women. This rapist "primordial father" is a male (obsessional), not feminine (hysterical), fantasy: it is man who is able to endure his integration into the symbolic order only when this integration is sustained by some hidden reference to the fantasy of the unbridled excessive jouissance embodied in the unconditional supergo injunction to enjoy, jouir to go to the extreme, to trangress and force constantly the limit. It is man in whom the integration into the symbolic order is sustained by the superego exception."
* Bruce Fink notes that the translation of plus-de-jouir rendered in Television (New York: Norton, 1989) as "over-coming" is deficient. Since plus-de-jouir is based on plus-value (Marx's surplus value), it means a surplus, extra or supplemental jouissance: the plus should be understood in the sense of Encore, More. He stresses that "the more sensual sense of being 'overcome' with or 'overwhelmed' by pleasure is related to the Other jouissance.
1969-1970 Le séminaire, Livre XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse.
French: (texte établi par Jacques-Alain Miller), Paris: Seuil, 1991.
English: Book XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis (edited by Jacques-Alain Miller), New York: Norton, 2006.
Lacan identifies four viables types of social bond which regulate intersubjective relations. Articulations of the symbolic network, the Four Discourses get structured throughout dramatic reflection: plus-de-jouir and jouisance; the master and the slave; Marx; knowledge, truth and jouissance; the Father of Totem and Taboo who is all love - or all jouissance - and whose murder generates the love of the Dead Father, a father to whom Lacan opposes both the Father presiding over the first idealization - the one deserving love - and the Father who enters the discourse of the Master and is thereby castrated ab initio. For Lacan "the death of the father is the key to supreme jouissance, later identified with the mother as aim of incest." Psychoanalyis "is not constructed on the proposition 'to sleep with the mother' but on the death of the father as primal jouissance." The real father is not the father of biological reality, be he who upholds "the Real as impossible." From the Oedipus complex Lacan only saves the paternal metaphor and the Name-of-the-Father which "is positioned where knowledge acts as truth. Psychoanalysis consolidates the law."
The novelty in this seminar is the return of the hysteric, with Dora and la Belle Bouche erre - the Beautiful Mouth wanders - an allusion to the dream of the beautiful butcher's wife analyzed by Freud and carried on in "The direction of the treatment and the principles of power" (Écrits: A Selection). Three questions: the rapport between jouissance and the desire for unfulfilled desire; the hysteric who makes man - fait l'homme or the Master - she constructs him as "a man prompted by the desire to know"; a new conception of the cure as a "hystericizaton of dicourse," which the analyst introduces at the structural level. This leaves untouched hysteria as attributed to woman - the only discourse where sexual difference comes openly into play. Castration is "the deprivation of woman," insofar as "she would fulfill herself in the smallest signifier." Woman is absent from the field of the signifier.
As to the mathemes "a fundamental starting relation" functions as a postulate:
S1 refers to "the marked circle of the field of the Other," it is the Master-Signifier. S2 is the "battery of signifiers, already there" at the place where "one wants to determine the status of a discourse as status of statement," that is knowledge - savoir. S1 comes into play in a signifying battery conforming the network of knowledge. is the subject, marked by the unbroken line - trait unaire - which represents it and is different from the living individual who is not the locus of this subject. Add the objet a, the object-waste or the loss of the object that ocurred when the originary division of the subject took place - the object that is the cause of desire: the plus-de-jouir.
Discourse of the Master:
It is the basic discourse from which the other three derive. The dominant position is occupied by the master signifier, S1, which represents the subject, S, for all other signifiers: S2. In this signifying operation there is a surplus: objet a. All attempts at totalisation are doomed to fail. This discourse masks the division of the subject, it illustrates the structure of the dialectic of the master and the slave. The master, S1, is the agent who puts the slave, S2, to work: the result is a surplus, objet a, that the master struggles to appropriate.
Discourse of the University:
It is caused by a anticlockwise quarter turn of the previous discourse. The dominant position is occupied by knowledge - savoir. An attempt to mastery can be traced behind the endeavors to impart neutral knowledge: domination of the other to whom knowledge is transmitted. This hegemony is visible in modernity with science.
Discourse of the Hysteric:
It is effected by a clockwise quarter turn of the discourse of the master. It is not simply "that which is uttered by the hysteric," but a certain kind of articulation in which any subject may be inscribed. The divided subject, S, the symptom, is in the pole position. This discourse points toward knowledge. "The cure involves the structural introduction of the discourse of the hysteric by way of artificial conditions": the analyst hystericizes the analysand's discourse.
Discourse of the Analyst:
It is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the hysteric in the same way as Freud develops psychoanalysis by giving an interpretative turn to the discourse of his hysterical patients. The position of the agent - the analyst - is occipied by objet a: the analyst becomes the cause of the analysand's desire. This discourse being the reverse of the discourse of the master, does it make psychoanalysis an essentially subversive practice which undermines attempts at domination and mastery?
In any case, this algebra is concerned with the positions which are fixed:
A the end of the seminar Lacan adds the opposition between 'impossibility' and 'impotence' - impuissance: "the impossible is the real where speech, as objet a, functions like a carrion" and "impotence protects truth." He states in his new translation of Wo Es War, soll Ich werden, work is for the analyst and "plus-de-jouir is for you": "Where plus-de-jouir was, the plus-de-jouir of the other, me, insofar as I utter the psychoanalytic act, I must come."
There is the story of the three Congolese, analyzed by Lacan after WWII: "Their unconscious functioned according to the rules of the Oedipus complex, it was the unconscious that had been sold to them at the same time as the laws of colonization, an exotic form of the discourse of the Master, a regression before imperialist capitalism." Are the capitalistic or imperialistic discourses mentioned only metamorphoses of the discourse of the Master?
As to the envers of psychoanalysis, sometimes it is the discourse of the Master when it functions as a foil. Sometimes it is unconscious discourse as the knowledge located where wrong and right sides (analytic discourse) cannot be separated, following the Moebius strip. "The envers is assonant with truth; one moves to the envers, but the envers does not explain any right side."
"Radiophonie" (Autres écrits) is an interview recorded while L'envers... is taking place. In it Lacan declares that if "language is the condition of the unconscious, the unconscious is the condition of linguistics." Freud anticipates Saussure and the Prague Circle when he sticks to the patient's words, jokes, slips of the tongue, and brings to light the importance of condensation and displacement in the production of dreams. The unconscious is the fact "that the subject is not the one who knows what he says. Whoever articulates the unconscious says that it is either that or nothing." Linguistics has no hold on the unconscious since it leaves as a blank that which produces effects on the unconscious, the objet a, the focus of the analytic act - of any act. "Only the discourse that defines itself in terms given by psychoanalysis manifests the subject as other, whereas science, by making the subject a master, conceals him, so the desire that gives way to him bars the subject for me without remedy." There is only one myth in Lacan's discourse: the Freudian Oedipus complex. "In psychoanalysis, as well as in the unconscious, man knows nothing of woman, and woman nothing of man. The phallus epitomizes the point in myth where the sexual becomes the passion of the signifier." There is, however, no algebraic formula for the unconscious discourse: "...the unconscious is only the metaphorical term designating the knowledge only sustained when presented as impossible, so that it can conform by being real - real discourse."
1965-1966 Le séminaire, Livre XIII: L'objet de la psychanalyse.
French: unpublished.
English: unpublished.
The theme of the subject divided between knowledge and truth is raised throughout the seminar. Lacan responds to the alternative between the mathematical model and metaphor by stating that "topology is not a metaphor, but a rigorous montage with the objet a." Thus the use of four mathemes: the disk with a hole, the Moebius strip, the torus and the Klein bottle. "The hole of the lack of the objet a would be located at the intersection of the fields of truth and knowledge": such is the conribution of psychoanalysis. It can therefore question science as to the truth whose contingency is missed or forgotten; the same happens with religion. Lacan both splits and unites his audience in two categories: "those who use my word for analytic purposes," and "those who prove that it can be followed in all its coherence and rigor, that it fits in a structure valid even outside its present practice." He also distinguishes between the analyst who at the moment of knowledge is divided (and he knows it), and the status of the subject-supposed-to-know (the subject of science) who restores the prestige of méconnaissance by thinking that he is uniting knowledge and subject.
Lacan goes to the Graph of Desire and relates them to his topology. The objet a is situated on four sides:
1. the demand of the Other (objet a is feces)
2. the demand on the part of the Other (objet a is the breast)
3. desire on the part of the Other (objet a is the gaze)
4. desire of the Other (objet a is the voice)
In this perspective he gives an account of his lectures in the United States, organized by Roman Jakobson, notably "Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever," at Johns Hopkins University. Michel Foucault talks about Velasquez's Las Meninas. His address allows Lacan to conjure his theory of the painting as "a trap for the gaze," a gaze in which what falls is objet a. The little girl is the slit in the perspective and the vanishing point, the hidden center of the painting, and "in this gap, béance where there is nothing to see, it is impossible to recognize the structure of the objets a: underneath the Infanta's dresses, 'it looks at me,' while the eye is made not to see..." Georges Bataille's Histoire de l'oeil is quoted as a text that establishes a connection among all the objets a in their rapport to the feminine sexual organ. Therefore, the phallus is the sign that occupies the place of this gap, the impossible or untenable real. This entails a reshaping of the unconscious around language and the gaze (excluded by Freud). Lacan goes back to to the Freudian dimension of desire and of the subject whose foundation is castration. The vagina, the feminine sexual organ, becomes the objet a, which fascinates and leads to ruin unless there is the screen of the phallus, even under the form of - Φ. In the end, the penis, as a manifestation that is seen, hardly hides the presence of an objet a that would be an enigmatic - a.
The gaze, it should be noted, is not found on the side of the subject, but on that of the object. "It marks the point in the object (the picture) from which the viewing subject is already gazed at" (Slavoj Zizek). The gaze is a spot in the picture, which does not warrant the presence of the subject and by blurring its visibility, introduces a split in the rapport between the object and the subject: the latter cannot see the picture at the point from which it is gazing at him. Zizek brings out Psycho, where Norman Bates' house is rendered uncanny because Hitchcok's viewpoint switches from the house coming closer (as seen by the approaching woman) to the same woman coming closer (as seen from the house), giving the anxious impression that the house is gazing at her.
1966-1967 Le séminaire, Livre XIV: La logique du fantasme.
French: unpublished.
English: unpublished.
Lacan stresses the importance of the signifying structure in fantasy. He takes as his starting point the matheme $, which is the logical articulation of fantasy. The matheme was already introduced in Les formations de l'inconscient, in the graphs of desire, and was later developed in 1960 in "The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious" (Écrits: A Selection) as the first topology of the subject.
$ represents the division of the subject barred by the signifier that constitutes him. The sign <> enunciates the relation either of inclusion/implication, or of exclusion between the two terms. It's a binary system where the verb as such disappears to leave room for the algebraic sign of a pure relation. Definitions of objet a will vary over the years; to understand it here, one should go back to the part object of La relation d'objet et les structures freudiennes, and then address its analysis in L'angoisse and L'objet de la psychanalyse. In 1960, however, Lacan mentions the fascination of the fantasy in which "the subject becomes the cut that makes shine in its inexpressible oscillation".
The objet a would be the primal object, forever lost, the remainder or the product, which cannot be assimilated because it is real, of the cut operated by the primal signifier engendering the subject when it repeats itself in absolute difference (L'identification). "If a is the frame of the subject, this frame falls at the level of the most fundamental act of life, the act in which the subject as such is engendered, i.e the repetition of the signifier." This is the symbolic paternal mark or the phallic mark since there is no signifier of sexual difference: "The phallus alone is the sex-unity." The objet a creates a hole constantly filled, in the partial frives, by the different objets a, the breast, feces, the penis, the gaze or the voice, objects that are in themselves caught in imaginary substitutions. To understand fantasy, one should try to determine the logical status of objet a, which can only be accomplished by way of a topology dealing with gemetrical figures. Is objet a situated on the side of the drive or of desire of which it is the cause? Is it born out of the separation from the placenta as a part of the body proper or from the division from oneself from the signifier, the cost that the speaking being has to pay to become a subject? Is there really an alternative? Lacan talks of a surface where "desire and reality" are "the right and the wrong sides"; however, the passage from one side to the other is unnoticeable, as if there were only one side, because "the relation of texture does not entail any break." Might the fantasy allow oneself to go from the drive to desire and from desire to the drive, to link them or to disjoint them?
Lacan oscillates between exaltation and bouts of anxiety: "The logic of fantasy is the most fundamental principle of any logic that deals with formalizing defiles," and at the same time defers his presentation of "alienation in terms logical calculation" because its formulation is not yet ready. The reason might have been that "truth is related to desire," which "creates difficulties for handling it like logicians do." His aim is to define "a logic that is not a logic, an entirely new logic that I have not named yet, for it needs to be instituted first." Using the character of Diotima from The Symposium, he mentions academic Penia (the lack) before psychoanalytic Poros (male resource) and wonders "up to what point, between the two, he could let the obscurity go."
The seminar shifts its course toward the search for a logic of the subject around the Cartesian cogito, then toward "the sexual act," questioning "the impossible subjectivization of sex," and of jouissance.
The multiple transformations of Descartes' cogito ergo sum (either I think or I am"; "either I don't think or I am not"; "I am where I don't think," or "I think where I am not") end with a play of words: Cogito ergo es. The Latin es (you are) marks the fundamental dependency on the Other and raises the problem of the passage from objet a to the Other or from the Other to objet a. Applied to desire, "I desire you" means "I implicate you in my fundamental fantasy" as objet a. Applied to love, "You are not, therefore I am not"; "You are nothing but what I am"; "You are the nothing that I am." Now, in German, Es is the id, defined as the "non-I," the impersonal id, is it the reservoir of drives? Is it the cauldron (with a hole in it) of Freud's witches? Or is it an aggregate of signifiers?
Lacan elaborates on the notion of "unbeing," désêtre, which would become the mark of the end of analysis. He elaborates on puns: the unconscious desire is "pure desire," dés-être like dés-espoir, despair, is an irpas, from the Latin ire, to go and the negation pas, not, which is an impassé, something that had not gone through, linked to the desire of the Other, but also an impasse, a dead end, due to repetition. The interpretation does not entail any solution, issue, to the interpreted desire because there is no solution, issue, to the unconscious desire that "will always remain a désirpas(desirenot)." For lacan, is this knowledge of the truth of the unconscious desire really the solution, issue to be offered in analysis, the solution to the unfulfilled desire" of hysteria, to the "prevented desire" of phobia, or to the "impossible desire" of obsession? By itself, the objet a upholds "the truth of alienation"; to discover this truth is to discover that "there is no universe of discourse" because something real (something impossible because not symbolizable) eludes it.
"The big secret of psychoanalysis is that there is no sexual act," all there is is sexuality, a very different thing. The act has a specific definition: it provokes a signifying doubling that allows for an insertion of the subject in a chain in which he inscribes himself. Or it raises the institution of the signifier. But there is no signifier of sexual difference and none of the feminine sex either. Between man and woman "there is this third object, objet a, whose always sliding function of substitution makes it impossible to keep them opposed in whatever eternal essence. It is impossible then to posit a subject inscribing himself as sexed in the act of conjunction to the subject of what is called the opposite sex." At the symbolic level, "there is no sexual rapport": there is merely (a + 1) and (a - 1), where a term marks the difference as a plus or a a minus. The phallus is "the sex-unity": the 1 symbolizes the incommensurable.
Lacan uses Marx's analyses of use value and exchange value, and starts his theory of "man-he" (l'homme-il). The "man-he" is also the man-standard and the man-stallion (l'homme-étalon), as well as the bull and the poor bearer of the symbol of sex, doomed to symbolic castration. He does not know how to live since there is no Other to guarantee him, not even if he were God, marked as he is by castration. The only safeguard is the construction of a protective society based on masculine homosexuality. The Father of Freud's primal horde, because he supposedly jouis all women, sees "his jouissance killed." Then, if the almighty phallus circulates, it is due to women. "Woman represents the phallus as an exchange value among men; and, if the power of the penis bears the mark of castration, it is because fictitiously she becomes what is enjoyed, ce dont on jouit, and circulates as an object of jouissance: she is the locus of transference of this jouissance value" represented by the phallus. Through her identification to the use value embodied in the phallus, woman transforms herself into an object-good. Yet, she does not lack resouirces, such as masquerade, to act as "man-she," l'homme-elle. "She is inexpugnable as a woman precisely outside the system of the sexual act," or "she has a different use of her own jouissance outside this ideology." Thus, Lacan establishes "the radical heterogeneity" of the jouissance of the two sexes whose rapport could only be problematic. He begins here a reflection that will lead him to Encore, the twentieth seminar.
1967-1968 Le séminaire, Livre XV: L'acte psychanalytique.
French: unpublished.
English: unpublished.
Since La logique du fantasme, where he states that there is not "sexual act," Lacan questions the difference between the act, l'acte and a mere action, agir. To make love would be an action, un agir, and to get married an act, un acte, because there is a commitment and a recognition, which entail repetition and the inscription in the Other. The signifier will appear soon: the absence of contradiction between Saint John's "In the beginning was the Word," and Goethe's "In the beginning was the action." Lacan then asserts "the irreducibility of the sexual act to any truthful relation." Since love is itself purely narcissistic, a social pact is what remains of a possible rapport between the sexes.
As to the different types of acts in psychoanalysis, there is the founding act: before, the effects of the unconscious existed, but nobody knew that they existed. There is the entrance into analysis and the fact of becoming an analyst, which are decisions and commitments. On the side of the analysand, there are slips and failures, which lead Lacan to give an Éloge de la connerie, Praise of Folly. In analysis it is almost impossible to answer simply to the injunction "render unto truth the things that are truth's and unto folly the things that are folly's," because the two overlap and then one finds "the folly of truth even more often than the truth of folly." The passage à l'acte and the "acting out" are activities that, although they fill a distressing hole, reproduce the past instead of remembering it in words. On the side of the analyst, "outside the manipulation of transference, there is no psychoanalytic act." In order for the analysand to move to the function of analyst, the latter - while pretending to be the upholder of the subject-supposed-to-know - must accept being "reduced to the function of cause of a process in which the subject-supposed-to-know is undone." Moreover, in the end the analyst must accept to be "nothing more than a waste of the operation represented by the objet a," which will produce an effect of truth. The position of the analyst is untenable, and this is why he opposes "the most violent misconstruction, méconnaissance, as to the analytic act itself." Besides, the analysand who experiences désêtre discovers, when becoming an analyst, that he is forced to restore for another the subject-supposed-to-know. The transmission would thus be compleed, very different from the passe itself. The psychoanalytic act, a "setting into act of the subject" and a "setting into act of the unconscious," is like a tragedy where the hero falls in the end as a piece of trash.
"In the beginning of psychoanalysis is transference," without any intersubjectivity, because between the two partners the subject-supposed-to-know acts as a third, as "the pivot from where everything that goes on in transference is articulated." This pivot is the signifier introduced in the discourse instituted by it, a formation as though detached from the analysand, which has nothing to do with the analyst's person. It is "a chain of letters that leads the not-known to frame knowledge," which concerns desire. The Graph of Desire still guides the analysis but an identity is asserted between the matheme of the subject-supposed-to-know and the agalma of Plato's The Symposium, which presents "the pure angle of the subject as the free rapport to the signifier, a signifier from which both the desire of knowledge and the desire of the Other are isolated."
Lacan wants to establish, as to the passage from the analysand to the analyst, "an eaquation whose constant is the agalma" (this term being a sort of compromise between objet a and the phallus). Once "the desire that, in its functionning, uphelds the analysand has been resolved, the analysand no longer wants to remove the possibility of such desire, the remainder which, insofar as it determines his division, makes him fall from his fantasy and destitutes him as subject." Lacan interprets the depressive position often noticed as the end of the analysis in terms of désêtre and "subjective destitution. "The subject sees its assurance sink, a self-assurance that comes from the fantasy in which everybody's opening onto the real is constituted." The subject realizes that the grasp of desire is nothing other than that of a désêtre. "In this désêtre what is unveiled is the nonessential nature of the subject-supposed-to-know; the analyst-to-be is dedicated to the agalma of the essence of desire, even if it means that the analyst-to-be has to be reduced to an ordinary signifier, since the subject is the signifier of the pure signifying relation." Does going through the fantasy, then, mean going toward the drive or toward a confrontation with the signifier? Thus Lacan answers: "The being of desire meets the being of knowledge to be reborn from their knot in a strip formed by the only side on which only one lack is inscribed, that which upholds the agalma." The agalmabecomes the signifier of the bar that is put on the Other (A); the gap of (- Φ) opens in the Other; and the (a) falls from the Other.
Slavoj Zizek argues that "here we find the inescapable deadlock that defines the position of the loved one: the other sees something in me and wants something from me, but I cannot give him what I do not possess - or as Lacan puts it, there is no rapport between what the loved one possesses and what the loving one lacks. The only way for the loved one to escape this deadlock is to stretch out his hand toward the loving one and to return love, that is to exchange, in a metaphorical gesture, his status as the loved one for the status of the loving one. This reversal designates the point of subjectivization: the object of love changes into the subject the moment it answers the call of love. And it is only by way of this reversal that a genuine love emerges: I am truly in love not when I am simply fascinated by the agalma in the other, but when I experience the other, the object of love, as frail and lost, as lacking 'it', and my love none the less survives this loss."
1968-1969 Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'autre.
French: (texte établi par Jacques-Alain Miller), Paris: Seuil, 2006.
English: unpublished.
Lacan takes a stand in the crisis of the university that follows May 1968: "If psychoanalysis cannot be articulated as a knowledge and taught as such, it has no place in Academia, where it is only a matter of knowledge." He rejects nonconceptualization: structure is the real. Dealing with the passage from objet a to the Other and from the Other to objet a, Lacan analyzes and combines Pascal, Marx and the logic of the link between l, the unbroken line, the trait unitaire of L'identification and a as follows:
To that, he adds questions on feminine jouissance (is it the place of the Other or of the Thing?), on the nullibiquité, non-ubiquitousness, of the phallus that testifies that jouissance is real but cannot be symbolized, on the Phallus as a symbol that is lacking or outside system, and the repetition of the Graphs of Desire.
Marx invented surplus-value, plus-value, and he, Lacan, invented the objet a. He asserts that he is going to construct the plus-de-jouir so as to isolate the objet a, he will do so by homology with surplus-value. In the matheme of fantasy, $<>a, "the being of a is the plus-de-jouir, surplus-jouissance.* At the level of the enunciation, perversion reveals "surplus-jouissance in its bare form." The rapport between surplus-jouissance and surplus-value is the function of the objet a. The perverse has given to God his true plenitude by giving a back to the Other. Hence, a is in A (the small other is in the big Other); however, a makes a hole in A. Jouissance is excluded, the Other is the place where it is known, a is the effect of fall that results from it. So, after going from a to A, one must go from A to a.
"I mainly talk about a dead God, maybe in order to better free myself from my relation to a dead Freud." Yet, in Le Pari, Pascal raises the question of the existence of God. The only true question is that of the subject: Does I exist? Do I exist? "The nothing that life is," which is at stake for Pascal, is the surplus-jouissance. The assumption of the loss creates the gap, béance, between the body and its jouissance: such is the effect of the objet a, the lost object, in the field of the Other. For Pascal, the central point is "the infinite nothing"; the only salvation is grace, for God's mercy is bigger than His justice. Grace allows proximity to the desire of the Other in its various forms: "I ask myself what you want," then "I ask you what you want," which leads to "Thy Will be Done!" However, this sentence is uttered to a faceless Other. God's will, for not being our will, comes to lack; then, for lack of God, we are left with the Father as dead, the Father as a name (the pivot of discourse) and as the rapport of jouissance to castration. "The Name-of-the-Father is a rift that remains wide open in my discourse, it is only known through an act of faith: there is no Incarnation in the place of the Other."
Slavoj Zizek aptly describes surplus-jouissance (lacanian ink 15) as follows:
"So in the case of the caffeine-free diet Coke, we drink the Nothingness itself, the pure semblance of a property that is effectively merely an envelope of a void. This example makes palpable the inherent link between three notions: that of the Marxist surplus-value, that of the Lacanian objet a as surplus-jouissance, and the paradox of the superego, perceived long ago by Freud: the more you drink Coke, the more you are thirsty; the more profit you have , the more you want; the more you obey the supergo command, the more you are guilty. In all three cases, the logic of balanced exchange is perturbed in favor of an excessive logic of "the more you give, the more you owe (or the consumerist version "the more you buy, the more you have to spend"), of the paradox which is the very opposite of the paradox of love where, as Juliet put in her immortal words to Romeo, 'the more I give, the more I have'.
The key to this perturbation is the surplus-jouissance, the objet a which exists (or rather insists) in a kind of curved space in which, the more you approach it, the more it eludes your grasp (or, the more you possess it, the greater the lack).
Perhaps, sexual difference enters here in an unexpected way: the reason why the supergo is stronger in man is that it is man, not woman, who is intensely related to this excess of the surplus-jouissance over the pacifying functionning of the symbolic Law. In terms of the paternal function, the opposition between the pacifying symbolic Law and the excessive supergo injunction is the one between the Name-of-the-Father (the paternal symbolic authority) and the "primordial father," allowed to enjoy all women. This rapist "primordial father" is a male (obsessional), not feminine (hysterical), fantasy: it is man who is able to endure his integration into the symbolic order only when this integration is sustained by some hidden reference to the fantasy of the unbridled excessive jouissance embodied in the unconditional supergo injunction to enjoy, jouir to go to the extreme, to trangress and force constantly the limit. It is man in whom the integration into the symbolic order is sustained by the superego exception."
* Bruce Fink notes that the translation of plus-de-jouir rendered in Television (New York: Norton, 1989) as "over-coming" is deficient. Since plus-de-jouir is based on plus-value (Marx's surplus value), it means a surplus, extra or supplemental jouissance: the plus should be understood in the sense of Encore, More. He stresses that "the more sensual sense of being 'overcome' with or 'overwhelmed' by pleasure is related to the Other jouissance.
1969-1970 Le séminaire, Livre XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse.
French: (texte établi par Jacques-Alain Miller), Paris: Seuil, 1991.
English: Book XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis (edited by Jacques-Alain Miller), New York: Norton, 2006.
Lacan identifies four viables types of social bond which regulate intersubjective relations. Articulations of the symbolic network, the Four Discourses get structured throughout dramatic reflection: plus-de-jouir and jouisance; the master and the slave; Marx; knowledge, truth and jouissance; the Father of Totem and Taboo who is all love - or all jouissance - and whose murder generates the love of the Dead Father, a father to whom Lacan opposes both the Father presiding over the first idealization - the one deserving love - and the Father who enters the discourse of the Master and is thereby castrated ab initio. For Lacan "the death of the father is the key to supreme jouissance, later identified with the mother as aim of incest." Psychoanalyis "is not constructed on the proposition 'to sleep with the mother' but on the death of the father as primal jouissance." The real father is not the father of biological reality, be he who upholds "the Real as impossible." From the Oedipus complex Lacan only saves the paternal metaphor and the Name-of-the-Father which "is positioned where knowledge acts as truth. Psychoanalysis consolidates the law."
The novelty in this seminar is the return of the hysteric, with Dora and la Belle Bouche erre - the Beautiful Mouth wanders - an allusion to the dream of the beautiful butcher's wife analyzed by Freud and carried on in "The direction of the treatment and the principles of power" (Écrits: A Selection). Three questions: the rapport between jouissance and the desire for unfulfilled desire; the hysteric who makes man - fait l'homme or the Master - she constructs him as "a man prompted by the desire to know"; a new conception of the cure as a "hystericizaton of dicourse," which the analyst introduces at the structural level. This leaves untouched hysteria as attributed to woman - the only discourse where sexual difference comes openly into play. Castration is "the deprivation of woman," insofar as "she would fulfill herself in the smallest signifier." Woman is absent from the field of the signifier.
As to the mathemes "a fundamental starting relation" functions as a postulate:
S1 refers to "the marked circle of the field of the Other," it is the Master-Signifier. S2 is the "battery of signifiers, already there" at the place where "one wants to determine the status of a discourse as status of statement," that is knowledge - savoir. S1 comes into play in a signifying battery conforming the network of knowledge.
is the subject, marked by the unbroken line - trait unaire - which represents it and is different from the living individual who is not the locus of this subject. Add the objet a, the object-waste or the loss of the object that ocurred when the originary division of the subject took place - the object that is the cause of desire: the plus-de-jouir.Discourse of the Master:
It is the basic discourse from which the other three derive. The dominant position is occupied by the master signifier, S1, which represents the subject, S, for all other signifiers: S2. In this signifying operation there is a surplus: objet a. All attempts at totalisation are doomed to fail. This discourse masks the division of the subject, it illustrates the structure of the dialectic of the master and the slave. The master, S1, is the agent who puts the slave, S2, to work: the result is a surplus, objet a, that the master struggles to appropriate.
Discourse of the University:
It is caused by a anticlockwise quarter turn of the previous discourse. The dominant position is occupied by knowledge - savoir. An attempt to mastery can be traced behind the endeavors to impart neutral knowledge: domination of the other to whom knowledge is transmitted. This hegemony is visible in modernity with science.
Discourse of the Hysteric:
It is effected by a clockwise quarter turn of the discourse of the master. It is not simply "that which is uttered by the hysteric," but a certain kind of articulation in which any subject may be inscribed. The divided subject, S, the symptom, is in the pole position. This discourse points toward knowledge. "The cure involves the structural introduction of the discourse of the hysteric by way of artificial conditions": the analyst hystericizes the analysand's discourse.
Discourse of the Analyst:
It is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the hysteric in the same way as Freud develops psychoanalysis by giving an interpretative turn to the discourse of his hysterical patients. The position of the agent - the analyst - is occipied by objet a: the analyst becomes the cause of the analysand's desire. This discourse being the reverse of the discourse of the master, does it make psychoanalysis an essentially subversive practice which undermines attempts at domination and mastery?
In any case, this algebra is concerned with the positions which are fixed:
A the end of the seminar Lacan adds the opposition between 'impossibility' and 'impotence' - impuissance: "the impossible is the real where speech, as objet a, functions like a carrion" and "impotence protects truth." He states in his new translation of Wo Es War, soll Ich werden, work is for the analyst and "plus-de-jouir is for you": "Where plus-de-jouir was, the plus-de-jouir of the other, me, insofar as I utter the psychoanalytic act, I must come."
There is the story of the three Congolese, analyzed by Lacan after WWII: "Their unconscious functioned according to the rules of the Oedipus complex, it was the unconscious that had been sold to them at the same time as the laws of colonization, an exotic form of the discourse of the Master, a regression before imperialist capitalism." Are the capitalistic or imperialistic discourses mentioned only metamorphoses of the discourse of the Master?
As to the envers of psychoanalysis, sometimes it is the discourse of the Master when it functions as a foil. Sometimes it is unconscious discourse as the knowledge located where wrong and right sides (analytic discourse) cannot be separated, following the Moebius strip. "The envers is assonant with truth; one moves to the envers, but the envers does not explain any right side."
"Radiophonie" (Autres écrits) is an interview recorded while L'envers... is taking place. In it Lacan declares that if "language is the condition of the unconscious, the unconscious is the condition of linguistics." Freud anticipates Saussure and the Prague Circle when he sticks to the patient's words, jokes, slips of the tongue, and brings to light the importance of condensation and displacement in the production of dreams. The unconscious is the fact "that the subject is not the one who knows what he says. Whoever articulates the unconscious says that it is either that or nothing." Linguistics has no hold on the unconscious since it leaves as a blank that which produces effects on the unconscious, the objet a, the focus of the analytic act - of any act. "Only the discourse that defines itself in terms given by psychoanalysis manifests the subject as other, whereas science, by making the subject a master, conceals him, so the desire that gives way to him bars the subject for me without remedy." There is only one myth in Lacan's discourse: the Freudian Oedipus complex. "In psychoanalysis, as well as in the unconscious, man knows nothing of woman, and woman nothing of man. The phallus epitomizes the point in myth where the sexual becomes the passion of the signifier." There is, however, no algebraic formula for the unconscious discourse: "...the unconscious is only the metaphorical term designating the knowledge only sustained when presented as impossible, so that it can conform by being real - real discourse."
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿