Changes

Jump to: navigation, search
no edit summary
Properly speaking this is a redundancy because "[[structured]]" and "as a [[language]]" for me mean exactly the same thing. [[Structure]]d means my [[speech]], my [[:category:terms|lexicon]], etc., which is exactly the same as a [[language]]. And that is not all. Which [[language]]? Rather than myself it was my pupils that took a great deal of trouble to give that question a different [[meaning]], and to search for the formula of a reduced [[language]]. What are the minimum conditions, they ask themselves, necessary to constitute a [[language]]? Perhaps only four <i>signantes</i>, four [[signify]]ing elements are enough. It is a curious exercise which is based on a complete error, as I hope to show you on the board in a moment. There were also some [[philosophers]], not many really but some, of those present at my [[seminar]] in Paris who have found since then that it was not a question of an &quot;under&quot; [[language]] or of &quot;another&quot; [[language]], not [[myth]] for instance or [[phoneme]]s, but [[language]]. It is extraordinary the pains that all took to change the place of the question. [[Myth]]s, for instance, do not take place in our consideration precisely because those are also [[structure]]d as a [[language]], and when I say &quot;as a [[language]]&quot; it is not as some special sort of [[language]], for example, [[mathematical]] [[language]], [[semiotical]] [[language]], or [[cinematographical]] [[language]]. [[Language]] is [[language]] and there is only one sort of [[languag]]e: [[concrete]] [[language]]&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; [[English]] or [[French]] for instance&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;that people talk. The first thing to start in this context is that there is no [[meta-language]]. For it is necessary that all so called [[meta-language]]s be presented to you with [[language]]. You cannot teach a course in [[mathematic]]s using only [[[letter]]s on the board. It is always necessary to speak an ordinary [[language]] that is understood.   It is not only because the material of the unconscious is a linguistic material, or as we say in French <i>langagier</i> that the unconscious is structured as a language. The question that the unconscious raises for you is a problem that touches the most sensitive point of the nature of language that is the question of the subject. The subject cannot simply be identified with the speaker or the personal pronoun in a sentence. In French the <i>ennoncé</i> is exactly the sentence, but there are many <i>ennoncés</i> where there is no index of him who utters the <i>ennoncé</i>. When I say &quot;it rains,&quot; the subject of the enunciation is not part of the sentence. In any case here there is some sort of difficulty. The subject cannot always be identified with what the linguists call &quot;the shifter.&quot;
It is not only because the [[material]] of the [[unconscious]] is a [[linguistic]] [[material]], or as we say in [[French]] <i>[[langagier]]</i> that the [[unconscious]] is [[structure]]d as a [[language]]. The question that the [[unconscious]] raises for you is a problem that touches the most sensitive point of the nature of [[language]] that is the question of the [[subject]]. The [[subject]] cannot simply be identified with the [[speaker]] or the personal pronoun in a sentence. In [[French]] the <i>[[ennoncé]]</i> is exactly the sentence, but there are many <i>[[ennoncé]]s</i> where there is no [[index]] of him who utters the <i>ennoncé</i>. When I say &quot;it rains,&quot; the [[subject]] of the [[enunciation]] is not part of the [[sentence]]. In any case here there is some sort of difficulty. The [[subject]] cannot always be identified with what the [[linguist]]s call &quot;the [[shifter]].&quot;
The question that the nature of the unconscious puts before us is in a few words, that something always thinks. Freud told us that the unconscious is above all thoughts, and that which thinks is barred from consciousness. This bar has many applications, many possibilities with regard to meaning. The main one is that it is really a barrier, a barrier which it is necessary to jump over or to pass through. This is important because if I don't emphasize this barrier all is well for you. As we say in French, ça vous arrange, because if something thinks in the floor below or underground things are simple; thought is always there and all one needs is a little consciousness on the thought that the living being is naturally thinking and all is well. If such were the case, thought would be prepared by life, naturally, such as instinct for instance. If thought is a natural process, then the unconscious is without difficulty. But the unconscious has nothing to do with instinct or primitive knowledge or preparation of thought in some underground. It is a thinking with words, with thoughts that escape your vigilance, your state of watchfulness. The question of vigilance is important. It is as if a demon plays a game with your watchfulness. The question is to find a precise status for this other subject which is exactly the sort of subject that we can determine taking our point of departure in language.
Root Admin, Bots, Bureaucrats, flow-bot, oversight, Administrators, Widget editors
24,654
edits

Navigation menu