Changes

Commentary on the [[graphs ]] ,H~ If it is [[true ]] that [[perception ]] eclipses [[structure]], a [[schema ]] will infallibly lead the [[subject ]] 'to forget in an intuitive [[image ]] the [[analysis ]] on which it is based' (p. 214). It is the task of [[symbolism ]] to forbid [[imaginary ]] [[capture ]] - and, indeed, its difficulty follows from the [[theory]]. When gaining some illumination from [[lacan]]'s [[schemata]], we should not forget this warning. Such a precaution reveals the inadequation in [[principle ]] between the graphic [[representation ]] and its [[object ]] (the object of [[psychoanalysis]]). More­over, all the constructions gathered together here have no more than a didactic [[role]]: their relation with the structure is one of analogy. On the [[other ]] hand, there is no occultation of the [[symbolic ]] in the [[topology ]] that lacan sets up, because this [[space ]] is the very space in which the re­lations of the [[logic ]] of the subject are schematized. The inadequation of the analogies is pointed out by Lacan quite unambiguously on the [[optical ]] [[model ]] of the ideals of the person, precisely in the [[absence ]] of [[the symbolic ]] object 0 ([[objet ]] [[petit a]]). From the note added to SchemaR (note 18, p. 223), one may learn the rules of transformation of intuitive geometry in the topology of the subject.

I The schema of the [[intersubjective ]] [[dialectic ]] ('[[Schema L]]', p. 193) The schema shows that the [[dual ]] relation between the ego and its pro­jection 0 0' (indifferently its image and that of the other) constitutes an obstacle to the advent of the subject S in the locus of its signifying deter­mination, A. The [[quaternary ]] is fundamental: 'a quadripartite structure has, since the introduction of the [[unconscious]], always been required in the [[construction ]] of a [[subjective ]] ordering' ('[[Kant ]] avec [[Sade]]', [[Ecrits]], p. 774). Why? Because to restore [[the imaginary ]] relation in the structure that presents it involves a duplication of its [[terms]]: the 'small other' [[being ]]

eY..ponentiated into '[[capital ]] Other', the [[undoing ]] of the subject of the signifying [[chain ]] coming to [[double ]] the ego. The symmetry or reciprocity belongs to the imaginary [[register]], and the [[position ]] of the [[Third ]] Party implies that of the fourth, which is given according to the levels of the analysis, the [[name ]] of '[[barred ]] subject', or dummy ([[mort]]). (Cf. p. 229, [[psychoanalytic ]] bridge).

('[[Schema R]]', p. 193; '[[Schreber]]'s Schema' (1), p. 212) Il• Composition of the symbolic, the imaginary and the [[real ]] ('Schema R') 'Schema R' is made up of the meeting of two triangles, the symbolic ternary and the imaginary ternary, delimited in a sq'.lare by the base of each [[triangle]]. If the triangle of the symbolic occupies half of the square to itself, the other two [[figures ]] sharing the other half, it is because, in [[structuring ]] [[them]], it must make them overlap. The dotted line stands for

This construction requires a dOl1~le [[reading]]: It may be read as a representation of the statlCS of the subject. Thus it consists of: (a) the triangle I resting on the [[dual relation ]] between the Ego and the Other ([[narcissism]], [[projection]], [[captation]]), with, for its apex, the [[phallus]], the imaginary object 'in which the subject [[identifies ]] himself .•. with himself as a [[living ]] being' (p. 196), that is to say, the [[species ]] under which the subject represents himself to himself; (b) the field S, with the [[three ]] functions of the Ego [[Ideal ]] I in which the subject is mapped in the register of the symbolic, of the [[signifier ]] of the Object M, of the Name-of-the-[[Father ]] F in the locus of the Other O. The line I M may be regarded as doubling the relation between the subject and the object of [[desire ]] through the mediation of the [[signifying chain]], a relation that the [[lacanian ]] [[algebra ]] was to write as $00 (but the line immediately proves to be an inadequate representation); (c) the field R, framed by the imaginary relation and the symbolic relation. But it is also the [[history ]] of the subject that is notated here: on the seg­ment i M are placed the figures of the imaginary Other, which cul­minate in the [[figure ]] of the [[mother]], the real Other, inscribed in the symbolic under the signifier of the [[primal ]] object, the first exterior to the subject, which bears in [[Freud ]] the name of das [[Ding ]] (cf. Bcrits, p. 656); on the segment m I follow the imaginary identifications that [[form ]] the Ego of the [[child ]] until he receives his statute in the real and form the symbolic [[identification]]. One finds once again, therefore, a specified [[synchrony ]] of the ternary S: the child in I is linked to the mother in M, as desire of her desire; in the third position is the Father, transmitted by the [[speech ]] of the mother. In his note of 1966, Lacan shows how to translate this square into his topology. The surface R is to be taken as the 'flattened form' (mise-a.-plat) of the figure that would be obtained by joining i to I and m to M, that is, by the torsion that characterizes the Moebius [[strip ]] in [[complete ]] space: the presentation of the schema in two dimensions is to be referred, therefore, to the cut that spreads the strip out. This explains why the straight line 1M cannot refer to the relation between the subject and the [[object of desire]]: the subject is simply the cut of the strip, and what falls from it is called the object 0 ([[objet petit a]]). This verifies and complements [[Jean-Claude Milner]]'s [[formula ]] on '$Oa': 'the terms are heterogeneous, whereas there is homogeneity attached to the places' (Cahiers pour l' [[analyse]], no. 3, p. 96). That is the [[power ]] of the subject. [[anticipation]], whose law imposes at the first intersection (on the vector -- S-S') the last [[word ]] (that is to say, [[punctuation ]] )and [[retroaction]], enumerated in the formula of intersubjective [[communication]], which necessitates a second intersection, in which is situated the receiver and his battery. [[Graph ]] 2 composes, on the basis of the [[elementary cell]], the [[imaginary identification ]] and the [[symbolic identification ]] in the subjective synchrony; the signifying chain is here given its specification as speech. It becomes the vector of the [[drive]], between desire and [[phantasy]], in the complete graph­the intermediary graph simply punctuating the question of the subject to the Other: 'What does he [[want ]] of me?' to be inverted in its [[return]], 'What