Changes

=====Symbolic Castration=====It is in the text '[[The subversion of the subject and the dialectic ofdesire in the Freudian unconscious]]' that a [[structure|structural]] account of ''jouissance'' is first given in connection with the [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] (Lacan, 1977).

The [[speaking]] [[being]] has to use the [[signifier]], which comes from the [[Other]]. This has an effect of cutting any notion of a complete ''jouissance '' of the [[Other]]. The [[signifier ]] forbids the ''jouissance '' of the [[body ]] of the Other. Complete ''jouissance '' is thus [[forbidden ]] to the one who speaks, that is, to all speaking beings. This refers to a loss of ''jouissance '' which is a necessity for those who use [[language ]] and are a product of language. This is a reference to [[castration]], [[castration ]] of ''jouissance'', a [[lack ]] of ''jouissance '' that is constituent of the [[subject]]. This loss of ''jouissance '' is a loss of the ''jouissance '' which is presumed to be possible with the [[Other]], but which is, in fact, lost from the beginning. The myth of a primary experience of satisfaction is an illusion to cover the fact that all satisfaction is marked by a loss in relation to a supposed initial, complete satisfaction. The primary effect of the [[signifier ]] is the [[repression ]] of [[the thing ]] where we suppose full ''jouissance '' to be. Once the signifier is there, ''jouissance '' is not there so completely. And it is only because of the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure of ''jouissance '' from the body, that it is possible to enjoy what remains, or is left over from this evacuating. What cannot be evacuated via the signifying operationremains as a ''jouissance'' around the [[erotogenic zones]], that to which the [[drive]] is articulated.

=====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[speakinglack]] in the [[beingsignifying order]] has to use the , a [[signifierlack]], which comes from in the [[Other]]. This has an effect of cutting any notion of , which designates a complete ''jouissance'' lack of the Other. The signifier forbids the ''jouissance'' of , creates a place where lost objects come, standing in for the body of the Other. Complete missing ''jouissance'' is thus forbidden to and creating a link between the one who speaks, that is, to all speaking beings. This refers to a loss of signifying order and ''jouissance'' which is a necessity for those who use language and are a product of language. This What is a reference to castration, castration of ''jouissance'', a lack allowed of ''jouissance'' that is constituent of in the subject. This loss of [[surplus]] ''jouissance'' is connected with [[object a loss of the ]]. Here ''jouissance'' which is presumed to be possible with embodied in the Other, but which is, in fact, lost from the beginningobject. The myth of a primary experience of satisfaction Although this object is an illusion to cover the fact that all satisfaction is marked by a loss in relation to lost and cannot be appropriated, it does restore a supposed initial, complete satisfaction. The primary effect of the signifier is the repression certain coefficient of the thing where we suppose full ''jouissance'' to . This can be. Once seen in the signifier is there, subject repeating him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'' is not there so completely. And it is only because of the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure of ''jouissance[[plus-de jouir]]'' from the body, that it is possible to enjoy what remains, or is left over from this evacuating. What cannot be evacuated via in the signifying operation remains as a ''jouissance'' around the erotogenic zones, that to which push of the [[drive is articulated].

What is left over after this negativization (—) of =====Drive=====''jouissance[[Plus-de jouir]]'' occurs at two levels. At one levelcan mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouissancejouir'' is redistributed outside the body in speech, and there is thus a no more ''jouissancejouir'' . The [[drive]] turning around this lost object attempts to capture something of speech itself, out-of-the-body lost ''jouissance''. On another level This it fails to do, at there is always a loss in the level circuit of the lost object, object adrive, but there is a plus (+), a little compensation ''jouissance'' in the form of what is allowed very [[repetition]] of this movement around the [[object a]], which it produces as a ''jouissance[[plus-de jouir]]''. In this structural approach, there is a compensation for the minus structuring function of lack itself, and the loss which has occurred in of the forbidding primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a cause, as seen in the function of [[object a]], the Other''[[plus-de jouir]]''.

The Freudian Oedipus refers to the father prohibiting access to the mother, that is, the law prohibiting ''jouissance''. Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to the one who speaks, but the impossibility in the very structure itself of such a ''jouissance'', that is, a lack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of the structure. Thus, what is prohibited is, in fact, already impossible. The lack in the signifying order, a lack in the Other, which designates a lack of ''jouissance'', creates a place where lost objects come, standing in for the missing ''jouissance'' and creating a link between the signifying order and ''jouissance''. What is allowed of ''jouissance'' is in the surplus ''jouissance'' connected with object a. Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the lost object. Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated, it does restore a certain coefficient of ''jouissance''. This can be seen in the subject repeating him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'', plus-de jouir, in the push of the drive. ''Plus-de jouir'' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouir'' and no more ''jouir''. The drive turning around this lost object attempts to capture something of the lost ''jouissance''. This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the circuit of the drive, but there is a ''jouissance'' in the very repetition of this movement around the object a, which it produces as a plus-de jouir. In this structural approach, there is a structuring function of lack itself, and the loss of the primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a cause, as seen in the function of object a, the plus-de jouir.=====Desire=====''Jouissance'' is denoted, in these years, in its [[dialectic ]] with [[desire]]. Unrecognised [[desire ]] brings the [[subject ]] closer to a destructive ''jouissance'', which is often followed by retreat. This destructive ''jouissance'' has a Freudian illustration in the account of the case of the [[Ratman]], of whom Freud notes `the horror of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud, S.E. 10, pp. 167-8).