Changes

The [[formulae of sexuation|diagram]] is [[divided ]] into two sides: on the [[left]], [[formulae of sexuation|the male side]], and on the [[right]], [[formulae of sexuation|the female side]].

Existential quantifiers are used in logic to denote finite collections and can be read as "there [[exists]]."

By contrast, "V" denotes (stands for) [[universal ]] quanitifiers.

Thus the formulae on the [[male ]] side are (= there is at least one x which is not submitted to the phallic function) and (= for all x, the phallic funciton is valid).

[[Image:form1.jpg|100px]] can be read as "there is a [[form ]] of ''jouissance'' that is not [[subject ]] to [[castration]]."

In [[Freud]]'s [[myth ]] of the [[primal ]] [[father]] in ''[[Totem and Taboo]]'', the primal [[father]] exemplifies this proposition as he has no limits on his [[sexual ]] [[enjoyment]].

That is, not only can the primal [[father]] [[enjoy ]] ''all'' the [[women ]] of the trible, he can enjoy his own [[mother ]] and daughters as well.

The [[idea ]] here is that all ''jouissance'' is mediated in the [[symbolic]] such that it is experienced as coming up short or [[lacking ]] in some way.

Every [[time ]] I get a bit of [[recognition]], I [[experience ]] this [[satisfaction ]] as less than expected or as coming up short.

<blockquote>As Fink writes, "There is a [[barrier ]] between my [[desire ]] for something as formulated or articulated in [[signifiers ]] (S) and what can [[satisfy ]] me. Thus, the satisfaction I take in realizing my desire is always disappointing. This satisfaction, subject to the bar between the [[signifier ]] and the [[signified]], fails to fulfill me-- it always leaves something more to be desired. That is [[phallic jouissance]]. Just as one cannot take the [[lack ]] out of Lacan, one cannot take the failure out of the [[phallus]]."<ref>Fink, Bruce. p.160</ref></blockquote>

The abstractness of the signifier-- if that's a [[good ]] way of putting it --is always in [[conflict ]] with the concreteness of jouissance, such that each [[concrete ]] jouissance we obtain is experienced as not [[being ]] it.

The upper level and lower level of the masculine [[graph ]] of [[sexuation ]] must be read together to [[signify ]] a [[particular ]] deadlock within the masculine form of relating to ''[[jouissance]]''.

Let the upper portion of the graph be a specifically [[masculine]] [[fantasy]] of [[complete ]] or [[total ]] ''[[jouissance]]''.

a) total jouissance is possible through some [[action ]] or [[object]], or

b) that some [[other ]] person or being has total jouissance, that he comes to find all the jouissance that is available in his day to day [[life ]] insufficient.

As one can [[sense ]] palpably in the [[clinic]], those [[subjects ]] that occupy the "masculine" [[position ]] with respect to ''[[jouissance]]'', are tormented by the [[unconscious ]] [[belief ]] that somewhere, somehow, an uncastrated or complete form of ''[[jouissance]]'' is possible.

The result is that masculine sexuated subjects will often concoct [[fantasies]] of how to acheive this ''[[jouissance]]'' and then do everything in their [[power ]] to prevent actually acting on their [[fantasies]] (as they would then be disappointed once again).

As [[Lacan]] puts it in the context of [[courtly love]], "It is a highly refined way of making up for the [[absence ]] of the sexual [[relationship]], by feigning that we are the ones who erect an obstacle thereto."<ref>69</ref>

Generally the [[woman]] is [[married ]] or perhaps a nun, so the two are prevented from ever consummating their [[love]].

Perhaps they send pages and pages of beautiful correspondance to one [[another]], bemoaning their inability to consummate their [[passion]], but the [[whole ]] point is to avoid passing to the act so as to sustain the belief that complete ''[[jouissance]]'' exists and discovering, once again, the disappointment of [[phallic]] ''[[jouissance]]''.

The [[female ]] side of the [[formulae of sexuation|graph of sexuation]] is far more difficult.

Like the male side, it expresses a fundamental deadlock within female [[sexuality ]] itself that serves as the motor of [[drive]].

The last [[formula ]] illustrates the relationship of [[woman]] to the logic of the [[not-all]].

<blockquote>According to Fink, "There is not any jouissance that is not phallic jouissance, the emphasis going on the first 'is.' All the jouissance that do [[exist ]] are phallic (in [[order ]] to exist, according to Lacan, something must be articulable within our signifying [[system ]] determined by the [[phallic signifier]]); but that does not mean that there cannot be some jouissance that are not phallic. It is just that they do not exist; instead, they ex-sist. The Other jouissances can only ex-sist, it cannot exist, for to exist it would have to be spoken, articulated, [[symbolized]]."<ref>p.161</ref></blockquote>

The [[concept ]] of [[ex-sistence ]] is complicated.

While initially it might sound absurd to say that something must be formulable within language in order to say that it exists, all that is here being said is that anything in [[the symbolic ]] is subject to a rule for or of its [[construction]].

To say that something ex-sists is to say that it is [[outside ]] language and not subject to a rule that can be expressed in language.

For [[instance]], sometimes [[people ]] say that love is unspeakable or say that we can't [[know ]] certain experiences without trying [[them ]] for ourselves.

The first half of the graph is thus saying that there is no jouissance, for [[speaking ]] beings, that is outside of language.

At this level, the [[feminine ]] position is indistinguishable from the position of the [[castrated ]] male.

The [[difference ]] between the masculine and [[feminine position ]] can here only be detected in [[terms ]] of the specific conflict or deadlock that organizes the feminine position's relation to jouissance, or its object [[choice ]] of desire.

[[Looking ]] back at the [[graphs ]] we see that there's an arrow underneath pointing from the "[[barred ]] woman" to the [[symbol ]] for the Phallus.

Here we're no longer talking [[about ]] the phallic function or castration, but signifiers of power such as wealth, prestige, strength, intelligence, [[political ]] power, etc.

He associates this ''[[jouissance]]'' with experiences described by mystics, such as Saint Teresa which describe such experiences as ec-static or beyond finite limitations, [[knowing ]] no earthly limits.

<blockquote>...it's like for Saint Teresa-- you [[need ]] to go to Rome and see the statue by Bernini to immediately [[understand ]] that she's coming. There's no [[doubt ]] about it. What is she getting off on? It is clear that the essential testimony of the mystics consists in saying that they experience it, but don't know anything about it.<ref>{{S20}} p.76</ref></blockquote>

More modestly, this [[Other jouissance ]] need not be [[thought ]] of solely in terms of something so grand as mystical experiences, but might also be thought in terms of a certain relationship to the [[body ]] such as the experience [[biological ]] women have of their body in terms of menstration or carrying [[children]].

Lacan also seems to entertain the possibility that this jouissance might not be a jouissance outside of language at all, but a certain way of enjoying speaking itself (masculine sexuated [[speech ]] being [[goal ]] directed or always aimed at a specific point, feminine sexuated speech, like [[Joyce]]'s [[writing]], taking [[pleasure ]] in the act of speaking itself even if it's about [[nothing ]] at all).

Lacan describes this enjoyment as a certain satisfaction taken in speech itself (Seminar 20, 72), where [[signification ]] ("making a point"/conveying information), loses its importance.

That is, here the subject has to navigate her subordination to the symbolic while also encountering a jouissance that ex-sists with [[regard ]] to the symbolic. Great mystics such as Plotinus, for instance, devoted their life to finding a way to mediate the relationship between finite things (the [[world ]] of castration) and the One that perturbs and abolishes these distinctions.

If the feminine side of the graph is so interesting, then this is because it allows us to conceptualize an order that's completely subordinated to the law of language (as is argued by reigning [[linguistic ]] constructivists) and [[claim ]] that this order is not-all.

[[Badiou]]'s entire [[ontology]], for instance, can be seen as thematizing a way of saying that all situations are subordinated to the phallic function or the law of castration (the [[symbolic order ]] of [[knowledge]]) while nonetheless explaining how an aleatory [[event ]] can come to rupture and [[supplement ]] a [[situation ]] (i.e., that the situation is not-all).

What is here even more promising is that such a supplementation is not the way of the [[mystic]].

<blockquote>"Each side is defined by both an [[affirmation ]] and a [[negation ]] of the phallic funciton, an inclusion and [[exclusion ]] of absolute (non-phallic) ''jouissance''."<ref>Copjec. 1994. p.24</ref></blockquote>