Text/Jacques Lacan/Seminar XX/Acheronta 12 - Encore - Séminaire de Jacques Lacan - Mardi 15 mai 1973
|[[File:Text/Text/./Acheronta%2012%20-%20Encore%20-%20Se%CC%81minaire%20de%20Jacques%20Lacan%20-%20Mardi%2015%20mai%201973_files/acheronlogo.jpg|453x99px|Acheronta - Revista of Psicoanalysis y Cultura]]|
Tuesday, May 15, 1973
I was warned this morning while I was working, at the last moment of my work, I was warned that on June 12, that June 12 that is not, whatever the second Tuesday, that is not not in principle the one I was hoping to meet you with, so I was warned that the room would be occupied by so-called oral exams and that from then on we could not answer for this that she would be free at such or such time because the oral exams do not know how it extends, how it ends. In any case, I did not intend, as I just said, to meet you for the 12th of June since it is the Tuesday of Pentecost. On the other hand, I intended to meet you on June 19th, third Tuesday. On June 19th the exams will continue,
Do as you please, you will be lucky, you will petition, I do not know, do what you like. So that's the point.
It is obvious that as it was this morning that I was warned, I could not simmer things in such a way that I make today the conclusion if at any in my years there is, strictly speaking, a conclusion which means that what I am telling you can only remain to a certain extent open, it is not a privilege. Things every year remain open on a number of outstanding issues. This will be what I will be able to expand on today.
I had dreamed that night, when I came here, there was nobody. This is where the dream character of the dream is confirmed. Despite of course I was ... since I had already worked in the middle of the night, I was quite outraged because I also remembered in my dream that I had worked at half past four in the morning, I was pretty outraged that all that must be used for nothing but it was still the satisfaction of a vow, namely that from then on I had only to roll them. Here.
I will say, I will say the function, I will say it once more because I repeat myself, I will say once again what is my saying and that is stated: there is no metalanguage . When I say that, I speak apparently of the language of being, except of course that as I pointed out last time, what I say is what there is not. Being is in other words non-being is not.
There's nothing there.
For me it is only a fact of said. It is supposed to be to certain words, for example an individual, or a substance, it is even made to say that it is supposed to be to the individual among others. This subject word that I use, you will see, I will come back to it, obviously takes a different accent because of my speech.
To be honest, I warn, I differ from the language of being. This implies that there can be fiction of words, I mean from the word. And as some people may remember, that's where I left when I talked about ethics. It is not because I have written things that function as a form of language that I assure the being of metalanguage. For this being, I would have to present it as subsisting by itself, by itself, the language of being.
why, because only it is mathematical, that is to say, capable of transmitting itself integrally, the mathematical formalization is of the writing, and it is here that I will try to advance today.
Now, it only remains this mathematical formalization, if I use to present it the language of which I am using. This is the objection. No formalization of the language is transmissible without the use of the language itself. It is by my saying that this formalization, ideal metalanguage, I make it ex-sister . It is thus that the symbolic is not confused, far from it, with being, but that it remains as ex-sistence of saying. This is what I pointed out in the text says L'?tourdit - d, i, t. -, that's what I stressed to say that the symbolic only supports ex-sistence.
In what I reminded him last time, this is one of the important things I said in this exercise, that as usual I did more or less to restrain you, to make you hear, but it would be it may be important that you remember the basics. The essential thing, I have reminded him once more about the unconscious, the unconscious is distinguished between all that has been produced until then of speeches, that it states this which is the bone of my teaching , that I speak without knowing it, I speak with my body and this without knowing it. So I always say more than I teach. This is where I come in the sense of the word subject in this other speech. What speaks without knowing it makes me, subject, subject of the verb certainly, but that is not enough to make me be.
In Plato, form is that knowledge that fills the being. The form knows no more than it says, it is real, I have just said, in that it holds the being in its cup but to the brim. It is the knowledge of being, the discourse of being supposes that being knows and that is what holds it.
There is a relationship of being that can not be known. It is he whose structure I am questioning in my teaching, as this knowledge, I have just said impossible, is hence forbidden. It is here that I play on the equivocation, the equivocation which of this impossible knowledge tells us that it is censored, defended, it is not, if you write this inter-said properly , in a straight line. of union between the inter and the said is that it is said between the words, between the lines and that's what it is about ...
to state to what kind of real allows us access.
It is a question of showing where his fitness is going, this metalanguage which is not and which I make ex-sister .
What can not be demonstrated suggests something that can be said to be true about the subject for example, among others, the ind?montrable. This is how this kind of truth opens up, the only one that is accessible to us and which deals, for example, with non-know-how.
I do not know how to go about it, why not say it, with the truth any more than with the woman, since I said that one and the other, at least for the man, was the same thing, it's the same embarrassment. It is, it is accident, that I have taste for both of them despite all that is said.
This discordance of knowledge and being is what is our subject. It does not preclude that we can also say that there is no discordance as to what leads the I, according to my title of this year, Encore . It is the insufficiency of the knowledge by which we are in body taken, and it is by this that I of Encore is carried out, not that to know more it would lead us better, but perhaps that there would be better enjoyment, agreement of enjoyment and its end. Now, the end of jouissance is, this is what Freud teaches us about what he unthinkingly calls a partial drive, the end of jouissance is next to what it ends up with, is that we reproduce.
I am not a being, it is a supposed thing to speak. What speaks only deals with my loneliness on the point of the report which I can only define as to say as I did that it can not be written. This loneliness, of rupture of knowledge, not only can it be written, but it is even that which is written par excellence, which of a rupture of being leaves trace. That's what I said in a text, certainly not without imperfections, that I called Lituraterre . The cloud of language I expressed to myself metaphorically made writing. Who knows if the fact that we can read these streams that I looked at the return of Japan, on Siberia, as metaphorical traces of writing, is not related
to bind and read it's the same letters be careful
Rather, is it related to this form of idealism that I would like to get into your head, not certainly the one Berkeley is talking about, to live in a time when the subject had become independent, not that all that we we know either representation, but rather this idealism which is the impossible to include the sexual relationship between two bodies of different sex.
This is where the opening is made by which the world comes to make us his partner. It is the speaking body insofar as it can only succeed in reproducing itself thanks to a misunderstanding of its enjoyment and that is to say that it reproduces itself only thanks to a failure of what it means, for what he means, as the French says it well, his meaning is his actual enjoyment,
it's a failure
that is to say to kiss
because that is precisely what he does not want to do, the proof is that when he is left alone he sublimates all the time with his hands, he sees the beauty, the good, without counting the true, c is still there as I just told you it is closest to what it is, but what is true is that the partner of the other sex is the Other.
It is therefore to the failure that it succeeds to be in reproduced body, without knowing anything of what reproduces, in particular this which is in Freud perfectly sensitive, of course it is only a stammering but we can not do better, he does not know if what reproduces him is life or death. I did not say what he, what apostrophe i, 1, I said what, who, the, must be separated.
Yes, I must, however, say what is metalanguage and how it is confused with the trace left by language. It is in this way that he returns to the revelation of the correlate of the language, this knowledge in addition to being it, his little chance to go to the Other, which I pointed out last time, it is the other essential point, that it is this knowledge in addition, passion of the ignorance, that it is precisely from this that it does not want to know anything. From the being of the Other he does not want to know anything .That's why the two other passions are the ones that are called love that has nothing to do contrary to what philosophy has elucidated with knowledge, and hatred that is what has the most of relationship with being what comes closest to it, which I call the ex-sister . Nothing is more hateful than saying where I call ex-sistence .
Writing is a trace where an effect of language is read.
When you scribble something and I, too, I do not deprive myself, it is with that that I prepare what I have to say, and it is remarkable that it is necessary to write to ensure. It is not the metalanguage, although one can make him fill a function which resembles it but which does not remain less less, with regard to the Other where the language inscribes like truth, which does not remain less quite second. Because nothing that I could write on the board of general formulas that bind to the point where we are the energy to the matter, for example the last formula of Heisenberg, nothing will hold all that if I do not support it of a saying which is that of language and of a practice which is that of people who give orders in the name of a certain knowledge.
So when you scribble, my faith as we say it's always on a page and it's with lines, and here we are immediately immersed in the history of dimensions. As what cuts a line is the point and the point has zero dimension, the line will be defined to have two ... Like what cuts ... the line will be defined to have one ...
Only, that's where the little sign I wrote up here takes its value. I mean the one that I need to distinguish from the one I wrote below. They are separated. You may notice that it is something that has all the characters of writing it could as well be a letter. Only as you write cursively, it does not occur to you to stop the line before it meets another to make it pass under, to suppose it to pass under, because it is in the writing of anything other than three-dimensional space 148 .
This line cut here, I said, means that it passes under the other. Here it is above because it is the other that breaks off, that is what produces, although there is not here that a line, this thing which is distinguished from what would be a simple round, a round of string if it existed. It differs in the sense that although there is only one string, it makes a knot.
It is nevertheless quite another thing this line that the definition that we gave it a moment ago with respect to the space, that is to say in short a cut, which makes a hole, an interior , an outside of the line.
This other line, this string, as I called it, is not so easily incarnated in space. The proof is that the ideal string, the simplest, would be a torus. And it has taken a long time to realize from the topology that what is locked in a torus is something that has absolutely nothing to do with what is locked in a cube. It is not a question of cutting the torus, because whatever you do with the surface of a torus you will not make a knot. But instead with the place of the torus, as this shows you, you can tie a knot. This is why, let me tell you, the torus is the reason that is what allows the node. That's good what I show you,
The fact remains that it is to remake three tori by the little thing that I already showed you under the name of Borromean knot that we will be able to operate, to say something about what it is about use of the first node. Of course there are some who were not there when I spoke last year, on the February side, of the Borromean knot.
Today we will try to make you feel the importance of this story and how it deals with writing as far as I have defined it as what traces language.
The Borromean knot consists in the fact that we are dealing with what is not seen anywhere, namely a real round of string. Because you figure that when you draw a string you can never get his frame to make ends meet. For you to have a round of string, you have to make a knot, preferably a sailor knot (in the room one laughs). I do not see what a jester, good! Ah! Let's do the sea knot, if you think it's easy try it yourself, it's always a bit of a hassle. Good! Finally, despite everything, I have tried these days to make it a habit and there is nothing easier than to miss it. Here ! Thanks to the knot (applause), you have a round of string.
The problem that is posed by the Borromean knot is this: how to do, when you made your rounds of string, so that for something like what you see in the top, namely a knot, so that these three rings of string hold together, and in such a way that if you cut one they are all free, I mean the three the three which is nothing. Because the problem is to do that with any number of rounds of string, when you cut one, all the others without exception, are now free, independent.
Here is for example the case, I already last year put that on the board.
Of course, as I made a small mistake, it is not quite satisfactory but it will become so. Nothing is easier in this order than to make a mistake. Ah! Still my fault!
As you see here, as you see it inscribed, it is easy for you to see that since these two rounds of string are so constructed that they are not tied to each other, it is only by the third that they stand, which curiously I did not manage to reproduce with my rounds of string. But thank God, I still have another way to do it than to reproduce what I do on the board, namely to miss it. (to his assistant: open me, you'll be nice, that one) I'm going to give you the means in a completely rational and understandable way ..., here, here is a round of string, here's another one.
You pass the second round in the first and you bend it like that. It will be sufficient for a third circle to take the second, so that these three are knotted, and knotted so that it is obviously enough that you cut one of the three so that the other two are free.
Suppose dear friends that I take this one away from you, this one that I just picked up, huh, you want the last one, that's the one you want, but it's quite the same, it's is quite the same for the simple reason that this one, which I represented to you as folded and which has in fact two ears in which passes the third, it is absolutely symmetrical on the other side, namely that by compared to the third he also has two ears that takes first.
Not only this, do not you believe you know it's useless is not it, all these little boondoggles, it's not so familiar that the way I'm led to explain it, with failings precisely, does not not what can get you into your head. Because I have to show it to you, because after all, there is only that way that it can enter. After the first folding, you can with the third, provided here to make a knot, make a new folding. And to this one a fourth, a fourth which is like the first being added, you see that it remains as true with four as with three that it is enough to cut one of these knots so that all the others are free between them. You can put an absolutely infinite number, it will always be true.
Nevertheless, this story makes the Borromean knot simple in the sense that here, for example, you can perfectly touch in what it is the two parts of this element which make ear, this one and this one, and that in sum in pulling it with the other, it is this round that folds in two, here and here pass, are the two ears, and this circle there, which will go to him, let the one that we will be able in this occasion, but only in this occasion to call first, which will remain in the round, round-support state of the first round folded.
To this sensible intuition, as it were, of the function of the circles, you can see that it suffices to cut any one of them, be it one of the middle or one of the two extremities, so that all that there is knots folded, at the same time, or from each other released. The solution is therefore absolutely general.
This does not mean that for any number of rounds of string, we can make a provision as relatively elegant by its relative symmetry as I did on the board, namely that these three rounds are strictly relative to each other. to others, of a form, equivalent. It will certainly be more complicated and this as soon as we arrived at four, it will often show us the effects of torsion that will not allow us to maintain the state of round.
Nevertheless, what I want on this occasion to make you feel is that starting from the rounds we are dealing with something that is only different from being the One. It is very precisely also, why a real round of string without knot is very difficult to do. But it is certainly the most eminent representation of something that is only supported by the One very precisely in the sense that it encloses nothing but a hole. And why did I introduce the Borromean knot in the old days, precisely to translate the formula: I ask you what? to refuse what? What I offer youthat is to say something that in the light of what it is about, and you know what it is, that is to say the small object a. The small object has is no being, the small object has is that suppose vacuum implies a demand, which in the end, it is only set it as located by metonymy that is to say, by the pure assured continuity of the beginning or beginning of the sentence, that we can imagine what can be of a desire that no being can support, I mean that which is without substance other than that who makes sure of the knots themselves. And the proof is that, stating this sentence: I ask you to refuse what I offer you , I could only motivate it,it is not that, of which I spoke, that I took up the last time, and which means that in the desire of any request there is only the request of this something which with regard to the enjoyment which would be satisfactory, which would be the supposed Lustbefriedigung in what is also improperly called in the psychoanalytic discourse of the genital drive, that in which a report which would be the full relation, the writable relation between what is the One with what remains irreducibly the Other.
That's how I insisted on this, is that the partner of this I who is the subject, the subject of any demand phrase, is that his partner is not the Other but this something which comes to replace it in the form, in the form of this cause of the desire which I thought to be able to diversify, to diversify and it is not without reason, in four, insofar as it is constituted according to the Freudian discovery in so far as it consists of the object of sucking, the object of excretion, the gaze and the voice. It is as a substitute for what is the Other that these objects are claimed, are made because of desire.
As I said earlier, it seems that the subject represents inanimate objects very precisely according to this that there is no sexual relation. Only the speaking bodies, I said, have an idea of ??the world as such. And here we can say that story 149 , the world as such, the world of being full of knowledge, is only a dream, a dream of the body as it speaks. There is no knowing subject, there are subjects who give themselves correlates in the object small a , correlates of words enjoying as jouissance of speech. What are they trapping other than others? Because, as I pointed out to you earlier , it is clear that this bilobulation, this transformation of the round of string into ears, it can be done in a strictly symmetrical way, which is even what happens when one reaches the level of four, that is to say that the two circles that represent my fingers at the end of these would be in function, there would be four.
Reciprocity, to put it all between the subject and the small object hasis total. For every speaking being the cause of his desire is strictly as to the structure, equivalent, if I may say, to his folding, to what I have called his division of subject. And that's what explains us that so long the subject could believe that the world knew as much as him, it is that it is symmetrical, it is that the world, what I called the last time to think it is the equivalent, it is the mirror image of thought. That's why the subject, as far as he fantasizes, there was, until the advent of the most modern science, there was nothing but fantasy about knowledge, and that is what allowed this scale of beings, thanks to what was supposed in a being said Supreme Being what was the good of all, which is the equivalent,has can be said, as the name suggests, write little has parentheses, put sexed after, and you know that the Other is presented to the subject in a form ( a ) sexual. That is to say that all that has been the support, the substitute support, substitute for the Other in the form of the object of desire, all that has been done of this order, is ( a ) sexed. And it is very precisely in what the Other as such remains, remains not without our being able to advance a little more, remains in the doctrine, the Freudian theory, a problem,
he who expressed himself in what Freud repeated: what does the woman want?
the woman being on the occasion the equivalent of the truth. This equivalence that I produced is justified.
But can not we go this way?
this way of what I have distinguished as the One to take as such, in the sense that there is nothing else in this figure of the round of string, which has nevertheless its interest to offer us, to offer us something that probably joins writing,
the requirement in fact that I produced under the name of Borromean knot, namely to find a form,
this form supported by this mythical support that is the round of string, mythical I said because we do not make a round of string closed, this is a point quite important.
What is this requirement that I have stated under the name
It is very precisely this which distinguishes, which distinguishes what we find in language, in the current language, and which is supported by the widespread metaphor of the chain, unlike the rounds of strings.
Chain elements, it is done that is forged, it is not very difficult to imagine how it is done, we twist the metal until we can get to solder, and the chain is so something which can have its function to represent the use of the language. No doubt it is not a simple support, it would be necessary in this chain to make links that would hang on to another link a little further with two or three intermediate floating links, and also to understand why a sentence has a duration limited.
But all this metaphor can not give it to us.
It is nevertheless striking that to take the support rounds of string that I told you there was still in what I made you sensitive, first and last. This first and the last were simple circles that crossed, which pierced if I can say both, what I call, you see the difficulty of talking about these things, what I call the ear lobes of the rounded backs . So it was two simple nodes that in the end were doing something like the beginning and the end of the chain.
He remains this. It remains this is that these two initial round terminals, nothing would prevent us from confusing them. It is to know that having cut them, cut what is imaginary, it is enough to undo them, to make pass one to take the four lobes
so summarized in a case where there are only two, but the situation would be exactly the same if there were an infinite number. Something to note we would not, to express myself quickly, we would have in this case ...
still a difference. It is not because we would have conjoined the last two knots that all the joints would be the same
because here they are confronted two by two, so there are four strands to tie
whereas here to take, to take my unique circle, you would have the support of this circle and four strands to pass, which would make a confrontation not of two to two who make four but from four to one who make five. And so one could say that even what would then be, since here you have only two elements, the third element, the third element in its topological relationship would not have the same relation with the two others as the two others between them . And as such, with simple inspection of the nodes in function, the third element would be distinguished from the others.
I think I have said enough about the symmetry of the reports of the first and second, since the last I called the third. This symmetry still holds, this symmetry still holds if you unify the third round with any one of the other two. Just then you will have a figure like this, one that faces a simple round with what I call the inner eight.
You will have had the blossoming of the Other but at the price of the over-expenditure of something which is the inner eight and which as you know is what I support the band of Moebius, in other words what in what in a strict support of this path that I try for you to spawn the function of the node, is expressed by the inner eight. I can only begin here, why, because I have yet to advance something that seems to me, before I leave you, capital. If I have given you the solution of the Borromean knots by this series of folded chains in the form of these circles which become completely independent if you cut one, what can this serve?
Contrary to what you see in the language, it is to know what is simply materialized and it is not very difficult, very difficult to find an example and not for nothing in psychosis. Remember what hallucinately populates the loneliness of
Nun will ich mich ..., which I translate: now I'm going to ... it's a future. Or
sie sollen n?mlich .... you owe it to yourself ...
Ces phrases interrompues que j?ai appel?es (long silence) message de code, ces phrases interrompues laissent en suspens je ne sais quelle substance. ? quoi peut nous servir cette exigence d?une phrase quelle qu?elle soit, qui soit telle qu?ayant sectionn? l?un, c?est-?-dire retir? d?l?Un de chacun de ces cha?nons, tous les autres du m?me coup soient libres ?
Est-ce que ce n?est pas l? le meilleur support que nous puissions donner de ce par quoi proc?de ce langage que j?ai appel? math?matique ?
Le propre du langage math?matique une fois qu?il est suffisamment resserr? quant ? ses exigences de pure d?monstration, et tr?s pr?cis?ment ceci de tout ce qui s?en avance, s?en avance non pas tant dans le commentaire parl? mais dans le maniement des lettres, suppose ceci qu?il suffit qu?une ne tienne pas pour que tout le reste, tout le reste des autres lettres, non seulement ne constituent par leur agencement rien de valable, mais se dispersent. Et c?est tr?s pr?cis?ment en ceci que le n?ud borrom?en peut nous servir de meilleure m?taphore quant ? ce qu?il en est d?une exigence qui est celle-ci : c?est que nous ne proc?dons que de l?Un.
L?Un engendre la science, non pas au sens o? quoique ce soit s?en mesure, ce n?est pas ce qui se mesure dans la science contrairement ? ce qu?on croit, qui est l?important. Ce qui fait le nerf original, ce qui distingue la science, la science moderne de la science de la r?ciprocit? entre le nous / no et le monde, entre ce qui pense et ce qui est pens?, c?est justement cette fonction de l?Un, en tant que l?Un n?est pas l?, n?est l? pouvons-nous supposer, que pour repr?senter ce qu?il en est justement de ce que l?Un est seul, de ce que l?Un ne se noue v?ritablement avec rien de ce qui ressemble ? l?Autre sexuel, que c?est au contraire de la cha?ne entre des uns qui sont tous faits de la m?me fa?on, de n??tre rien d?autre que de l?Un.
Quand j?ai dit y?a d?l?Un et que j?y ai insist?, que j?ai vraiment pi?tin? ?a comme un ?l?phant pendant toute l?ann?e derni?re, vous voyez ce que je fraye et ce ? quoi je vous introduis.
Comment alors quelque part mettre comme telle la fonction de l?Autre, comment si jusqu?? un certain point c?est simplement des n?uds de l?Un que se supporte ce qui reste quand ?a s??crit de tout langage, comment poser une diff?rence car il est clair que l?Autre ne s?additionne pas ? l?Un, l?Autre seulement s?en diff?rencie. S?il y a quelque chose par quoi il participe ? l?Un c?est que bien loin qu?il s?additionne, ce dont il s?agit concernant l?Autre c?est comme je l?ai dit d?j? mais il n?est pas s?r que vous l?ayez entendu c?est que l?Autre c?est l?Un en moins. C?est pour ?a que dans, dans tout rapport de l?homme avec une femme, celle qui est en cause c?est sous l?angle de l?Une en moins qu?elle doit ?tre prise.
Je vous avais d?j? indiqu? ?a un petit peu ? propos de Don Juan, mais bien entendu il n?y a qu?une seule personne je crois, ma fille nomm?ment, qui s?en soit aper?u. N?anmoins pour simplement aujourd?hui amorcer ce que je pourrais vous dire d?autre, je vais vous montrer quelque chose. Car il ne suffit pas d?avoir trouv? une solution g?n?rale ? ce qu?il en est du probl?me pour un nombre infini des n?uds borrom?ens, il faudrait que nous ayons le moyen de montrer que c?est la seule solution. Or nous en sommes ? ceci jusqu?? ce jour qu? il n?y a aucune th?orie des n?uds. Qu?est-ce que ?a veut dire, ?a veut dire ceci que tr?s pr?cis?ment, au n?ud ne s?applique jusqu?? ce jour aucune formalisation math?matique qui permette, en dehors de quelques petites fabrications de petits exemples tels que ceux que je vous ai montr?s, de pr?voir qu?une solution, celle que je viens de donner n?est pas simplement une solution ex-sistante, mais qu?elle est n?cessaire, qu?elle ne cesse pas comme je le dis pour d?finir le n?cessaire, qu?elle ne cesse pas de s??crire. Or, il suffit que tout de suite je vous montre quelque chose que bien s?r je vais ?crire au tableau, parce que vous savez pas le tintouin que ?a me donne de mettre tout ?a sur le papier d?une fa?on que je tiens ? votre disposition, qui sera aussi bien photographi? dans un prochain article mais qui en demande un certain.
Il suffit que je vous fasse ?a :
C?est emb?tant que les autres, les autres n?uds soient l?.
Je viens de faire passer deux de ces ronds l?un dans l?autre d?une fa?on telle qu?ils font ici non pas du tout ce re-pliage que je vous ai montr? tout ? l?heure mais simplement un n?ud marin. Comme ils sont de ce fait m?me, puisque je viens de les agencer ferm?s, comme ils sont de ce fait m?me parfaitement s?parables l? un de l?autre, vous devez penser que, si simplement ce qui m?est tout aussi possible je fais avec un cercle qui suit le m?me n?ud marin, il suffit que j?approche de ceux-l? un autre, ici je peux faire la m?me chose avec un troisi?me rond. J?aurai encore un n?ud marin, peu importe qu?il soit face ? face avec le premier ou qu?il soit strictement dans la file, c?est-?-dire que ce qui passe devant, passe devant ?galement le suivant.
Je peux en faire un nombre infini et m?me fermer le cercle que cela fera, le fermer simplement. Pour le dernier, pour le dernier bien s?r, il ne sera pas s?parable, il faudra que ce dernier je le passe entre les deux du bout de ce que j?aurai d?j? construit, et que je le passe en faisant un n?ud. Non pas en l?introduisant comme je viens de faire pour ces deux-l?. Il n?en restera pas moins que voil? une autre solution tout aussi valable que la premi?re, car que je sectionne un quelconque de ceux que j?aurai agenc?s ainsi, tous les autres du m?me coup seront libres, et pourtant ce ne sera pas la m?me sorte de n?ud.
Je vous ai pass? ? l?occasion ceci que tout ? l?heure, pour le n ?ud que je vous ai montr? ainsi, en vous disant qu?aussi bien il y avait quelque n?cessit? que celui dans lequel j?ai conjoint le premier et le dernier rond, quelque n?cessit? d?une diff?rence, il n?en est, en r?alit?, rien. Car je vous le fais remarquer, au moment o? je viens de vous montrer les autres, ? savoir ce que j?ai appel? la prise en forme de n?ud marin, vous voyez tr?s bien ? ceci que m?me le dernier, ce dernier dont je vous ai dit que l?affrontement ?tait de un ? quatre, et que du m?me coup il y avait cinq brins dans le coup, que m?me le dernier je peux le faire exactement semblable ? tous ceux-l?, qu?il n?y a ? ?a aucune difficult?, et qu?ainsi j?aurai aussi de cette fa?on r?solu sans introduire aucun point privil?gi? la question du n?ud borrom?en, pour un nombre x et aussi bien infini de ronds de ficelle.
Est-ce que ce n?est pas dans cette possibilit? de diff?rence, puisque aussi bien il n?y a aucune analogie topologique entre l?une et l?autre de ces fa?ons de nouer les ronds de ficelle ? Est-ce que c?est dans cette topologie diff?rente, une que nous pouvons exprimer ici ? propos des n?uds marins, c?est une topologie de torsions, disons, par rapport aux autres, qui seraient simplement de flexions.
Est-ce que nous pouvons user de ceci pour,
car il ne serait pas contradictoire de prendre m?me ceci dans un n?ud marin ?
C?est tr?s facile ? faire, faites-en l??preuve.
Tr?s exactement voici la fa?on dont la chose fl?chit, se prend au n?ud marin.
O? mettre la limite de cet usage des n?uds pour arriver ? la solution de ce qu?est ceci :
la section d?un quelconque de ces ronds de ficelle entra?ne la lib?ration de tous les autres, c?est ? dire nous donne le mod?le de ce qu?il en est ? partir de cette formalisation math?matique, celle qui substitue ? la fonction d?un nombre quelconque ce qu?on appelle une lettre. Car la formalisation math?matique ce n?est pas autre chose. Que vous ?criviez que quelque chose, que vous ?criviez que quelque chose, l??nergie 150, ce soit un demi de mv2.
qu?est que ?a veut dire, ?a veut dire que quelque soit le nombre d?uns que vous mettiez sous chacune de ces lettres, vous ?tes soumis ? un certain nombre de lois qui sont des lois de groupe telles que l?addition, la multiplication?
Voil? la question que j?ouvre et qui est faite pour vous annoncer s?il faut, ce que j?esp?re, ce que je peux ?ventuellement vous transmettre concernant ce qui s??crit.
Ce qui s??crit, en somme, qu?est-ce que ?a serait, les conditions de la jouissance.
Et ce qui se compte, qu?est-ce que ?a serait, les r?sidus de la jouissance ! Car aussi bien cet a, a-sexu?, est-ce que ce n?est pas de le conjoindre avec ce qu?elle a de plus de jouir ?tant Autre de ne pouvoir ?tre dite qu?Autre que la femme l?offre sous l?esp?ce de l?objet petit a ?
L?homme croit cr?er
croyez bien que je vous dis pas ?a au hasard
croit ? croit ? croit, bon !
il cr?e ? cr?e ? cr?e
et il cr?e ? cr?e ? cr?e la femme. Ouais !
En r?alit? il la met au travail, mais au travail de l?Un et c?est bien en quoi cet Autre pour autant que s?y inscrit l?articulation du langage, c?est-?-dire la v?rit?, l?Autre pourra ?tre barr?, barr? de ceci que j?ai qualifi? tout ? l?heure de l?Un en moins. Le S de A en tant qu?il est barr? :
c?est bien cela que ?a veut dire, et c?est en quoi nous en arrivons ? poser la question de faire de l?Un quelque chose qui se tienne, c?est-?-dire qui se compte sans ?tre.
La math?matisation seule atteint un r?el et c?est en quoi c?est compatible avec notre discours, discours analytique, un r?el qui pr?cis?ment s??vade qui n?a rien ? faire avec ce que la connaissance traditionnelle a support?, c?est-?-dire non pas ce qu?elle croit, la r?alit? mais bien de fantasme.
Le r?el c?est le myst?re du corps parlant, c?est le myst?re de l?inconscient.
148 Les notes dont nous disposions ne reproduisaient pas les dessins des n?uds. Nous avons donc utilis? les dessins de la version Seuil, sauf pour le n?ud de la p. 10 qui est faux dans la version Seuil. Nous avons utilis? le bon n?ud r?tabli par Soury et Thom? dans Cha?nes et n?uds deuxi?me partie, texte 58, p. 4.
149 Lacan dit ? conte ?. Lapsus ?
150 Lapsus ?
- Berkeley - p. 4
- Don Juan - p. 16
- Freud - p. 5
- Heisenberg - p. 5
- Japon - p. 4
- Platon - p. 3
- Schreber - p. 15
- Sib?rie - p. 4
- L??tourdit - p. 3
- Lituraterre - p. 4
- Encore - p. 4
|[[File:Text/Text/./Acheronta%2012%20-%20Encore%20-%20Se%CC%81minaire%20de%20Jacques%20Lacan%20-%20Mardi%2015%20mai%201973_files/acheronlogo.jpg|453x99px|Volver al sumario del N?mero 13]]|