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|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|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 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 $00 (but the line immediately proves to be an inadequate representation); (c) the field R, framed by the imaginary relation and the symbolic relation. But it is also the [[history ]] of the subject that is notated here: on the seg­ment i M are placed the figures of the [[Imaginary other|imaginary Other]], which cul­minate in the [[figure ]] of the [[mother]], [[The Real|the real ]] Other, inscribed in the symbolic under the signifier of the [[primal ]] object, the first exterior to the subject, which bears in [[Freud ]] the name of das [[Ding ]] (cf. Bcrits, p. 656); on the segment m I follow the imaginary identifications that [[form ]] the Ego of the [[child ]] until he receives his statute in the real and form the symbolic [[identification]]. One finds once again, therefore, a specified [[synchrony ]] of the ternary S: the child in I is linked to the mother in M, as desire of her desire; in the third position is the Father, transmitted by the [[speech ]] of the mother. In his note of 1966, Lacan shows how to translate this square into his topology. The surface R is to be taken as the 'flattened form' (mise-a.-plat) of the figure that would be obtained by joining i to I and m to M, that is, by the torsion that characterizes the Moebius [[strip ]] in [[complete ]] space: the presentation of the schema in two dimensions is to be referred, therefore, to [[The Cut|the cut ]] that spreads the strip out. This explains why the straight line 1M cannot refer to the relation between the subject and the [[object of desire]]: the subject is simply the cut of the strip, and what falls from it is called the object 0 ([[objet petit a]]). This verifies and complements [[Jean-Claude Milner]]'s [[formula ]] on '$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|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