==Definition==
'''''Jouissance''''' is a [[French language|French]] term which translated means "[[enjoyment]]" and is contrasted with ''[[plaisir]]''. In every sense of the word it is whatever "gets you off". Something that gives the [[subject]] a way out of its [[normative]] subjectivity through [[transcendent]] [[Bliss (feeling)|bliss]] whether that bliss or [[orgasmic]] [[rapture]] be found in [[text]]s, [[film]]s, works of [[art]] or [[sexual]] spheres; [[excess]] as opposed to [[utility]]. It is a popular term in [[postmodernism]] and [[queer theory]] used by [[Roland Barthes]], [[Jacques Lacan]], [[Judith Butler]], and others. [[Leo Bersani]] considers ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ as intrinsically self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent [[self]]'.
For Barthes (1977, p.9) ''plaisir[[Jouissance]]'' is, "a pleasure...linked to cultural enjoyment and identity, to the cultural enjoyment of identity, to a homogenising movement of the ego." As [[Richard MiddletonFrench]] (1990, p.261) puts it, "''Plaisir'' results, then, from the operation of the structures of signification through which the subject knows himself or herself; ''jouissance'' fractures these structuresterm."
The French ‘’jouissance’’ means basically ‘’enjoyment’’, but it has a sexual connotation (i.e. ‘orgasm’) lacking in the English word ‘enjoyment’, and is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of Lacan.
Lacan develops an opposition between ‘’jouissance’’ and [[pleasure]].
The [[pleasure principle]] functions as a limit to enjoyment; it is a law which commands the subject to ‘enjoy as little as possible.’
At The [[French]] noun means '[[enjoyment]]' in both the sense of [[pleasure]] and in the sense in which one speaks of the [[enjoyment]] of [[right]]s and privileges. It can also mean orgasm, and the cognate verb ''jouir'' is commonly used to mean 'to come'. The use of the noun in [[English]] has been promoted by translations of [[Lacan]] and others, but it is commonly treated as a French word and italicized accordingly. jouissance is always used in the singular and is always accompanied by the singular definite article. ==Jacques Lacan and ''Jouissance''== In <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i> (1930), [[Freud]] describes a contradiction inherent in the concept of [[pleasure]]. <blockquote>This endeavor [of striving for [[happiness]]] has two sides... It aims, on the one hand, at an [[absence]] of [[pain]] and [[unpleasure]], and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong [[feeling]]s of [[pleasure]]... The task of avoiding [[suffering]] pushes that of obtaining [[pleasure]] into the background.<ref>1930, pp. 76-77</ref></blockquote> The term was already present in [[Freud]], but [[Lacan]] developed it as a concept. [[Lacan]] argues that the two aspects of [[pleasure]] were irreconcilable. The [[pleasure principle]] blocks the path to ''[[jouissance]]''. <blockquote>Who is there who in the name of [[pleasure]] doesn't start to weaken when the first half-serious is taken step toward [[jouissance]]?<ref>1959-1960/1992, p. 185</ref></blockquote> <blockquote>"(Even an [[animal]]) has an economy: it acts so as to produce the very least possible [[jouissance]]. That's what we call the [[pleasure principle]]."<ref>1969-70/1991, p. 88</ref></blockquote> ''[[Jouissance]]'' is involved when the [[pleasure principle]] yields not necessarily to [[pain]], but to un[[pleasure]]. ==Jacques Lacan== [[Lacan]] begins to use the term [[jouissance]] in his seminars of 1953-4 where it refers to [[Kojeve]]'s version of the [[master]]-[[slave]] [[dialectic]], in which the work of the [[slave]] provides [[object]]s for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]]. The term's [[meaning]] gradually shifts and acquires more sexual connotations from the early 1960s onwards. The most sustained disucssion will be found in the seminar of 1969-70. ==''Jouissance'' versus Pleasure== [[Lacan]] develops an opposition between ''[[jouissance]]'' ('[[enjoyment]]') and ''[[plaisir]]'' ('[[pleasure]]'). For Barthes ''plaisir'' is, "a pleasure...linked to cultural enjoyment and identity, to the cultural enjoyment of identity, to a homogenising movement of the same timeego."<ref>(1977, p.9)</ref> As [[Richard Middleton]] (1990, p.261) puts it, "''Plaisir'' results, then, from the operation of the structures of signification through which the subject constantly attempts knows himself or herself; ''jouissance'' fractures these structures." ==''Jouissance'' versus Pleasure==It evokes an eroticizes death drive and a degree of intensity which takes the subject ebyond the pleasure principle. Pleasure is described as an obstacle to transgress jouissance in that is always leads to a reduction in tension and to a return to homeostatis, or a dynamically stable state. Jouissance in constrast takes the subject to that extreme point where the erotic borders upon death. ===Pleasure Principle=== The [[pleasure principle]] functions as a [[limit]] to [[enjoyment]]. The [[pleasure principle]] is a [[law]] which commands the prohibitions imposed [[subject]] to "enjoy as little as possible."<ref>[[Lacan, Jacques]].</ref> The [[prohibition]] on his ''[[jouissance]]'' The [[symbolic]] [[prohibition]] of [[enjoyment]] It is inherent in the [[symbolic]] [[structure]] of [[language]]. "''[[Jouissance]]'' is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."<ref>{{E}} p.319</ref> The [[subject]], in order to go ‘beyond gain entry to the [[symbolic]] [[order]], must renounce ''[[jouissance]]'' (in the [[castration complex]]). In other words, the [[subject]] must give up any attempt to be the [[imaginary]] [[phallus]] for the [[mother]]. The [[symbolic]] [[prohibition]] of [[enjoyment]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incest]] [[taboo]]) is the [[prohibition]] of something which is already [[impossible]]. Its function is to sustain the [[neurotic]] [[illusion]] that [[enjoyment]] would be attainable if it were not forbidden. ===Prohibition and Desire===The [[prohibition]] gives rise to the [[desire]] to [[transgress]] it. ''[[Jouissance]]'' is fundamentally [[transgressive]]. ==''Jouissance'' and the Law== This situates ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ in another field and simultaneously introduces the question of [[religion]], moral precepts, and the [[law]].In <i>[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]</i>, [[Lacan]] based ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ on the [[law]]. If ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ consists in breaking the barrier of the [[pleasure principle]], if it can only be attained through a [[transgression]], then only a [[prohibition]] opens the path toward it. ===Beyond the Pleasure Principle=== The [[subject]] can [[trangress]] the [[prohibition]]s on [[enjoyment]] (imposed by the [[pleasure principle]]) by going "[[beyond the pleasure principle.’" ===Pleasure and Pain===
However, the result of transgressing the pleasure principle is not more pleasure, but pain, since there is only a certainamount of pleasure that the subject can bear.
The term ‘’jouissance thus nicely expresses the paradoxical satisfaction that the subject derives from his symptom, or, to put it another way, the suffering that he derives from his own satisfaction.
The prohibition of ‘’jouissance’’ (In <i>[[Beyond the pleasure principle) is inherent in Pleasure Principle]]</i>, [[Freud]] had already noted that "the symbolic structure of language, which is why ‘jouissance’’ is forbidden to him who speaks, most painful experiences . . . can yet be felt . . . as suchhighly enjoyable.”<ref>E 3191920, p. 17</ref>The subject’s entry into the symbolic Is conditional upon a certain initial renunciation of ‘’jouissance’’ in the castration complex, when the subject gives up his attempts to be the imaginary phallus for the mother.
The symbolic prohibition of enjoyment in the Oedipus complex (the incest taboo) It is thus, paradoxically, true that once we start down the prohibition path of something which is already impossible; its function is therefore to sustain the neurotic illusion that enjoyment would be attainable if it were ''[[jouissance]] '', we do not forbidden.The very prohibition creates the desire to transgress know where itwill lead: "It starts with a tickle and ends up bursting into flames" (Lacan, and ‘’jouissance’’ is therefore fundamentally transgressive1991, p. 83).
==''Jouissance'' and the Death-Drive==
The [[subject]] has a constant [[desire]] to break through, to transgress the [[pleasure principle]].
The [[death drive]] is that constant [[desire]] of the [[subject]] to break through the [[pleasure principle]] towards the [[Thing]] and excess [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'').
[[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is "the path towards [[death]]."<ref>{{S17}} p.17</ref>
The [[death drive]] is the name given to that constant desire in the subject to break through the pleasure principle towards the Thign and a certain excess ‘’jouissance’’; thus ‘’jouissance’’ is ‘the path towards death.”<ref>s17 17</ref>
Insofar as the drives are attempts to break through the pleasure principle in search of ‘’jouissance,’’ every drive is a death drive.
==Phallic ''Jouissance''==There are strong affinities similarities between Lacan’sconcept [[Lacan]]'s concept of ‘‘''[[jouissance]]’’ and Freud’s [[Freud]]'s concept of the Libido[[libido]].In keeping with Freud’s assertiont hat [[Freud]] asserted that there is only one [[libido]], which is [[masculine, ]]. [[Lacan]] states that ‘‘''[[jouissance]]’’ '' is essentially [[phallic; “Jouissance]]. <blockquote>"''[[Jouissance]]'', isnofar insofar as it is [[sexual]], is [[phallic]], which means that it does not relate to the [[Other ]] as such.”"<ref>{{S20}} p.58</ref></blockquote> ==Feminine ''Jouissance''== In 1973, [[Lacan]] states that there is a [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'' [[Feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'' is a "[[supplement]]ary ''[[jouissance]]'', which is beyond the [[phallus]], a ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]].<ref>{{S20 }} p.58, 69.</ref>
However in 1973 [[LacanFeminine]] admits that there is a specificially feminine jouissance, a ‘supplementary jouissance’, which is beyond the pahllus’. A ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other.<ref>S20, 58, 69)</ref>This feminine ‘‘''[[jouissance]]’’ '' is ineffable.
==Phallic versus Feminine ''Jouissance''==
In order to differentiate between these two forms of jouissance, [[Lacan]] introduces different algebraic symbols for each; Jd designates phallic jouissance, whereas JA designates the ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other.
==''Jouissance'' and Repetition==
==Dictionary==In his [[seminar]] of 1959-1960, <i>[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]</i> (''L'éthique de la psychanalyse''), [[Lacan]] developed the concept of ''made a connection between ‘‘[[jouissance]]'' (''enjoyment'') while discussing <i>’’ and [[Civilization and Its Discontentsrepetition]]</i>.<ref>Freud, 1930</ref>
In that work, (He drew support for his argument from the [[Freudhysteria|hysterical]] had articulated a contradiction inherent in the [[conceptsymptom]] of [[pleasurerepetition]]: <blockquote>This endeavor [of striving for happiness] has two sides. . . . It aims, on the one hand, at an absence of pain and unpleasure, and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure. . . . The task of avoiding suffering pushes that of obtaining pleasure into the background.<ref>1930, pp. 76-77</ref></blockquote>)
For [[Lacan]], these two aspects of defines [[pleasurerepetition]] were as a [[irreconcilabletrace]], and he argued that [[Freud]] connected the [[pleasure principle|pleasure]] and [[reality principle]]s under a no-kind of [[displeasure|displeasure principlewriting]]. This is the very principle , that blocks the path to ''[[commemorates "an irruption of jouissance]] ''. "<ref>1991, p. 89</ref>
[[Lacan]] asks:
<blockquote>Who is there who in the name of pleasure doesn't start to weaken when the first half-serious is taken step toward jouissance?<ref>1959-1960/1992, p. 185</ref></blockquote>
Even an animal, he added, “has an economy: it acts so as to produce the very least possible jouissance. That's what we call the pleasure principle.”<ref>1969-70/1991, p. 88</ref>
It is true that once we start down the path of ''[[jouissance]] '', we do not know where it will lead: "It starts with a tickle and ends up bursting into flames" (Lacan, 1991, p. 83).
In <i>[[Beyond the Pleasure Principle]]</i>, [[Freud]] had already noted that "the most painful experiences . . . can yet be felt . . . as highly enjoyable.”<ref>1920, p. 17</ref>
On the basis of this text, ==Need and Drive== [[Lacan]] made posits a connection basic opposition between ‘‘[[jouissanceneed]]’’ and [[repetitiondrive]]. He drew support for his argument from <blockquote>"And if the social bond is established by renouncing the [[hysteria|hysterical]] [[symptomsatisfaction]] of the [[repetitiondrive]] and defined , it is because this [[repetitionsatisfaction]] as a implies the [[traceenjoyment]], a kind — in the juridical sense of the term — of [[writingobject]], s that commemorates "an irruption of jouissance.”<ref>1991, p. 89</ref> ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ (<i>Genuss</i>) is involved when the pleasure principle yields not necessarily to pain, but could either belong to unpleasure. The term was already present in [[Freudother]], but s or deprive them of their [[Lacanjouissance]] developed it as a concept. " ==''Jouissance'' and Drive==Still, he complained of never having had the time to outline its parameters, which he would have likely called "the Lacanian field.<ref>1991, p. 93</ref>
In <i>[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]</i>, [[Lacan]] emphasized that [[Freud]] posed the question of ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ in terms of [[drive]].
==''Jouissance'' and the Superego==
The [[energy]] of the [[superego]] derives from the [[libido]] of this [[satisfaction|unsatisfied]] [[drive]]; the more the [[subject]] fails to feel ''[[jouissance]]'', the more libido]] there is to feed the [[superego]], and the more the [[superego]] will [[demand]] new [[renunciation]]s.
[[Lacan]] believed that in <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i>, [[Freud]] was stating that "everything that is transferred from ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ to [[prohibition]] gives rise to the increasing strengthening of prohibition."<ref>Lacan, 1992, p. 176</ref>
What is involved here is not the [[satisfaction]] of need, but of the [[drive]].
==Graph of Desire== [[Lacan]] posits inscribes ''[[jouissance]]'' in the [[topography]] of the [[graph of desire]].<ref>{{E}} "[[The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire]]."</ref> At the upper level of the graph, ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is indicated by signifying lack in the Other, S(A̷). This is phallic jouissance, which is related to castration as lack. Traditionally, the erectile organ, the phallus, represents the object of jouissance, not so much by itself, but rather as the missing portion of a desired image. Phallic ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is inscribed in the diagram at the level of a vector that starts out from S(A̷), the Other's lack, and goes toward (S̷ ◇ D), the drive as articulated by the subject and the demand of the Other. Thus ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is "of the Other" and at the same time operates on the level of the drive. Recognizing the Other's lack produces a fantasy in the subject's unconscious. In this fantasy, the object represents what the subject imagines that the Other is deprived of. In everyday life, the mother, as primordial Other, is prohibited from making up for her lack with her child. Thus the Other remains prohibited. In his diagram, [[Lacan]] located ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ at the place of the barred Other, S(A̷) this is also where [[Lacan]] inscribed the superego that orders the subject to enjoy, "Jouis!" To this command, the subject can only respond, "J'ouis!" ("I hear!"), for such ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is structurally prohibited. [[Lacan]] repeated that while the superego prohibits and punishes, it also requires that the subject experience jouissance. For Lacan, the requirement to enjoy is directly related to a taboo. But what is prohibited, what must remain unsatisfied, is only the subject's jouissance. Giving the Other an experience of ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ does not seem to be prohibited. The Other is barred in the diagram only by being marked by the loss of object <i>a</i>. Thus if a basic opposition subject assumes the position of the Other's missing object and if this can make the Other whole, then "It would enjoy," as [[Lacan]] said (2002, p. 311). He thus introduced a ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ outside the phallic order, a mystic jouissance, which he defined as a nonphallic, feminine ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ (1998). For being not whole, a woman "has a supplementary ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ compared to what the phallic function designates by way of jouissance. . . . Y]ou need but go to Rome and see the statue by [Gianlorenzo] Bernini [the Ecstasy of St. Teresa] to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it" (1998, pp. 73, 76). But what did [[Lacan]] mean when he said that a woman, for being "not whole," was capable of a supplementary, nonphallic jouissance? With the "formulas of sexuation," he proposed dividing subjects not according to their biological sex, but according to their relation to the phallus. On the masculine side would be those subjects who take object <i>a</i> as the cause of their desire and depend upon their phallic nature to attain it. Subjects on the feminine side have one eye on the phallus and one eye on the ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other, S(A̷). The male or female mystic—a designation independent of biological sex—is situated on the feminine side. Supplementary jouissance, strictly speaking, is feminine. But to attain it, the subject must stop looking both ways—toward phallic ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ and ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other—and become devoted only to the latter. Such an experience was attained by St. John of the Cross, for example, who was familiar with a mystical ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ "outside sex," and thus beyond the mark of difference and beyond lack. The moment of ecstasy arrives when the mystic, entirely desubjectified and merged with object <i>a</i> of the Other's desire, becomes one with the Other, who in turn no longer lacks. The result is that to represent the Other's jouissance, "A" is rewritten as unbarred, S(A). In <i>Civilization and Its Discontents</i>, [[Freud]] referred to the "oceanic feeling" of being at one with the greater Whole. Such is the feeling of mysticism, and also of trances and ecstasy. ==Religion== Lacan's later comments on jouissance, and in aparticular his speculations as to the existence of a specifically femlae jouissance, are greatly influenced by Bataille's explorations of the relationship between eroticism , death and mysticism. Significantly, both the first edition of Bataill'e sEroticism (1957) and the twntieth volume of Lacan's smeinar (1975) are illustrated with reproductions of Bernini's representation of St Teresa, which depicts the saint at the moment of his 'transverbation' or penetation by the word of God. By way of commentary Lacan remarks: "She's coming, no doubt about it."He goes on to speculate that St Teresa ies experiencing a female jouissance that goes beyond the phallus. This, he argues, is a jouissance that women can experience without being bale to speak of it. The argument overlooks that fac tthat the historical St Teresa has a great deal to say about her experience. Whereas [[Freud]] discussed the dark relationship between mysticism and suffering with great hesitation, [[needLacan]] spoke of them more positively by remarking that on the cultural level, adoration of Christ suffering on the cross naturally sustains jouissance. If certain mystics directly experience ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ by looking at the Other's face—by looking at the face of God—others can attain it only by allowing the ever so broken body of Christ on Calvary to sustain it. They partake of a vicarious ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ from Christ's mutilated body offered up to God. Commenting on Catholicism, [[Lacan]] wrote, "That doctrine speaks only of the incarnation of God in a body, and assumes that the passion suffered in that person constituted another person's jouissance" (1998, p. 113) As for the "[[other]]," he is already implicated in [[Freud]]'s analysis of [[sadism]]: when we inflict [[pain]] on others, "we [[enjoy]] by [[identifying]] with the [[suffering]] [[object]] ." From his reading of <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i>, [[Lacan]] concluded, "[[Jouissance]] is [[evil]] . . . because it involves [[suffering]] for my [[neighbor]]."<ref>1992, p. 184</ref> Moreover, he noted that [[love]] of one's [[neighbor]] seemed absurd to [[Freud]]. <blockquote>Each time that this [[Christian]] ideal is stated, "we see evoked the [[presence]] of that fundamental [[evil]] which dwells within this [[neighbor]]. But if that is the case, then it also dwells within me. And what is more of a [[neighbor]] to me than this heart within which is that of my ‘‘[[drivejouissance]]’’ and which I don't dare go near?”<ref>Lacan, 1992, p.186</ref></blockquote>
==Theory==
Something that gives the [[subject]] a way out of its [[normative]] subjectivity through [[transcendent]] [[Bliss (feeling)|bliss]] whether that bliss or [[orgasmic]] [[rapture]] be found in [[text]]s, [[film]]s, works of [[art]] or [[sexual]] spheres; [[excess]] as opposed to [[utility]].
In factIt is a popular term in [[postmodernism]] and [[queer theory]] used by [[Roland Barthes]], [[Jacques Lacan]] placed the two in radical opposition to one another: "And if the social bond is established by renouncing the satisfaction of the drive, it is because this satisfaction implies the enjoyment—in the juridical sense of the term—of objects that could either belong to [[Judith Butler]], and others or deprive them of their jouissance."
This situates ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ in another field and simultaneously introduces the question of [[religion]], moral precepts, and the [[law]].In <i>[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]</i>, [[Lacan]] based ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ on the [[law]]. If ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ consists in breaking the barrier of the [[pleasure principle]], if it can only be attained through a [[transgression]], then only a [[prohibition]] opens the path toward it. As for the "[[other]]," he is already implicated in [[Freud]]'s analysis of [[sadism]]: when we inflict pain on others, "we enjoy by identifying with the suffering object." From his reading of <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i>, [[Lacan]] concluded, "Jouissance is evil . . . because it involves suffering for my neighbor" (1992, p. 184). Moreover, he noted that love of one's neighbor seemed absurd to Freud. Each time that this Christian ideal is stated, "we see evoked the presence of that fundamental evil which dwells within this neighbor. But if that is the case, then it also dwells within me. And what is more of a neighbor to me than this heart within which is that of my ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ and which I don't dare go near?" (Lacan, 1992, p. 186).In "The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire" (2002), [[Lacan]] inscribed ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ in the topography of his graph of desire. At the upper level of the graph, ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is indicated by signifying lack in the Other, S(A̷). This is phallic jouissance, which is related to castration as lack. Traditionally, the erectile organ, the phallus, represents the object of jouissance, not so much by itself, but rather as the missing portion of a desired image. Phallic ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is inscribed in the diagram at the level of a vector that starts out from S(A̷), the Other's lack, and goes toward (S̷ ◇ D), the drive as articulated by the subject and the demand of the Other. Thus ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is "of the Other" and at the same time operates on the level of the drive. Recognizing the Other's lack produces a fantasy in the subject's unconscious. In this fantasy, the object represents what the subject imagines that the Other is deprived of.In everyday life, the mother, as primordial Other, is prohibited from making up for her lack with her child. Thus the Other remains prohibited. In his diagram, [[Lacan]] located ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ at the place of the barred Other, S(A̷) this is also where [[Lacan]] inscribed the superego that orders the subject to enjoy, "Jouis!" To this command, the subject can only respond, "J'ouis!" ("I hear!"), for such ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is structurally prohibited. [[Lacan]] repeated that while the superego prohibits and punishes, it also requires that the subject experience jouissance. For Lacan, the requirement to enjoy is directly related to a taboo. But what is prohibited, what must remain unsatisfied, is only the subject's jouissance. Giving the Other an experience of ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ does not seem to be prohibited.The Other is barred in the diagram only by being marked by the loss of object <i>a</i>. Thus if a subject assumes the position of the Other's missing object and if this can make the Other whole, then "It would enjoy," as [[Lacan]] said (2002, p. 311). He thus introduced a ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ outside the phallic order, a mystic jouissance, which he defined as a nonphallic, feminine ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ (1998). For being not whole, a woman "has a supplementary ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ compared to what the phallic function designates by way of jouissance. . . . Y]ou need but go to Rome and see the statue by [Gianlorenzo] Bernini [the Ecstasy of St. Teresa] to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it" (1998, pp. 73, 76).But what did [[Lacan]] mean when he said that a woman, for being "not whole," was capable of a supplementary, nonphallic jouissance? With the "formulas of sexuation," he proposed dividing subjects not according to their biological sex, but according to their relation to the phallus. On the masculine side would be those subjects who take object <i>a</i> as the cause of their desire and depend upon their phallic nature to attain it. Subjects on the feminine side have one eye on the phallus and one eye on the ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other, S(A̷). The male or female mystic—a designation independent of biological sex—is situated on the feminine side. Supplementary jouissance, strictly speaking, is feminine. But to attain it, the subject must stop looking both ways—toward phallic ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ and ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other—and become devoted only to the latter. Such an experience was attained by St. John of the Cross, for example, who was familiar with a mystical ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ "outside sex," and thus beyond the mark of difference and beyond lack. The moment of ecstasy arrives when the mystic, entirely desubjectified and merged with object <i>a</i> of the Other's desire, becomes one with the Other, who in turn no longer lacks. The result is that to represent the Other's jouissance, "A" is rewritten as unbarred, S(A). In <i>Civilization and Its Discontents</i>, [[Freud]] referred to the "oceanic feeling" of being at one with the greater Whole. Such is the feeling of mysticismintrinsically self-shattering, and also of trances and ecstasy.Whereas [[Freud]] discussed the dark relationship between mysticism and suffering with great hesitation, [[Lacan]] spoke of them more positively by remarking that on the cultural level, adoration of Christ suffering on the cross naturally sustains jouissance. If certain mystics directly experience ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ by looking at the Other's face—by looking at the face of God—others can attain it only by allowing the ever so broken body of Christ on Calvary to sustain it. They partake disruptive of a vicarious ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ from Christ's mutilated body offered up to God. Commenting on Catholicism, coherent [[Lacanself]] wrote, "That doctrine speaks only of the incarnation of God in a body, and assumes that the passion suffered in that person constituted another person's jouissance" (1998, p. 113)
== [[Kid A In Alphabet Land]] ==
* [[Castration of the subject]]
* [[Dark continent]]
* [[Desire]]
* [[Formula of Fantasy]]
* [[Fetishism]]
* [[Graph of Desire]]
* [[Heredity and the Aetiology of the Neuroses]]* [[Kantianism and psychoanalysis]]
* [[Masochism]]
* [[Matheme]]
* [[Narcissistic elation]]
* ''[[Object a]]''
* [[Phallus]]
* [[Phobias in children]]
* [[Repetition compulsion]]
* [[Formulas of Sexuation]]
* [[Subject's desire]]
* [[Subject of the drive]]
* [[Suffering]]
* [[Symptom]]
* ''[[sinthomeSinthome]]''
* [[Voyeurism]]
