Changes

{| class="toc" style="line-height:2.0em;width:100%;text-align:justify;border-spacing:8px;margin-bottom:10px" id="toc" align="center" width="100%" summary="Contents" margin-bottom="20px"| style="font-size:100%;word-spacing:50%;line-height:2em; padding: 0.2em 2.2em 0.2em 2.2em; margin: 0.5em 0 1em 0;" align="center" width="100%" |Author: [[Jacques Lacan]]<BR>Translator: James B. Swenson, Jr.<BR>Source: October, Vol. 51 (Winter, 1989) pp.55-75|} <poemstyle="border: 2px solid #d6d2c5; background-color: #f9f4e6; padding: 1em;">

Against this we hold that the Sadian bedroom is equal to those places from which the [[schools]] of ancient [[philosophy]] took their [[name]]: Academy, Lyceum, Stoa. Here as there, the way for [[science]] is prepared by rectifying the [[position]] of [[ethics]]. In this, yes, a ground-clearing occurs which will have to make its way through the depths of taste for a hundred years for [[Freud]]'s path to be passable. Count sixty more for someone to say the [[reason]] for all of that.

If Freud was able to enunciate ‘’his’’ [[his pleasure]] [[principle]] without even having to worry [[about]] marking what distinguishes it frotn from its function in traditional ethics, even without risking that it should be heard as an echo of the uncontested prejudice of two millenia, to [[recall]] the attraction which preordains the creature to its [[good]], along with the [[psychology]] inscribed in various [[myths]] of goodwill, we can only credit this to the insinuating rise across the pineteenth nineteenth century of the theme of "[[happiness]] in [[evil]]."

Here [[Sade]] is the inaugural step of a [[subversion]], of which, however amusing it might seem with respect to the coldness of the man, [[Kant]] is the turning point, and never noted, to our [[knowledge]], as such.

‘’Philosophy ''Philosophy in the Bedroom’’ Bedroom'' comes eight years after the ‘’Critique Critique of [[Practical]] Reason’’Reason. If, after having seen that the one accords with the [[other]], we [765] show that it completes it, we will say that it gives the [[truth]] of the ‘’Critique’’''Critique''.

For this reason, the postulates in which the latter culminates: the alibi of immortality where it represses [[progress]], holiness, and even [[love]], anything [[satisfying]] which might come of the law, the [[guarantee]] which it requires from a will for which the [[object]] to which the law refers would be intelligible, losing even the flat prop of the function of utility to which Kant had confined [[them]], restore the [[work]] to its diamondlike subversion. Which explains the unbelievable exaltation which any reader not forewarned by academic piety receives from it. [[Nothing]] which might have been explained about it will ruin this effect.

That one is well in evil, or if one prefers, that the eternal [[feminine]] does not draw one upward, one could say that this turn was taken upon a philological remark: namely that what had theretofore been admitted, that one is well in the good [‘’qu''qu'on est bien dans le bien’’bien''], rests on a homonym which the [[German]] [[language]] does not allow'': ‘’Man fühlt Man fiihlt sich wohl im Guten’’Guten''. This is how Kant introduces us to his ‘’Practical Reagon’’''Practical Reason''.

The [[pleasure principle]] is the law of the good which is the ‘’wohl’’''wohl'', let us say well-[[being]] [‘’bien''bien-être’’être'']. In [[practice]], it would submit the [[subject]] to the same phenomenal succession which determines its [[objects]]. The objection that Kant poses to it is, [[true]] to his rigorous style, intrinsic. No phenomenon can [[claim]] for itself a constant relation to pleasure. Thus no law of such a good can be [[enunciated]] which would define as will [[The Subject|the subject]] who would introduce it into his practice.

The pursuit of the good would thus be an [[impasse]] if it were not reborn as ‘’das Gute’’''das Gute'', the good which is the object of the [[moral]] law. It is indicated to us by our [[experience]] of [[listening]] within oursb&es ourselves to commandments, whose imperative presents itself as categorical, that is, unconditional.

Let us note that this good is only supposed as the Good by proposing itself, as has just been said, over and against any object which would set a condition to it, by opposing itself to whatever uncertain good these objects might provide, in an a priori equivalence, in [[order]] to impose d f itself as superior by virtue of its [[universal]] [[value]]. Thus its weight only appears É eluding by excluding anything-[[drive]] or sentiment-which the subject might suffer in grest his interest for an object, what Kant therefore qualifies as "pathological."[766]

It would thus be by induction from this effect ggone that one would recover the Sovereign Good of the Ancients, if Kant, as is his custo(custom, did not further specify that this Good [[acts]] not as a counterweight, but, so to speäg speak, as an antiweight, that is to say by the subtraction of weight which it produces in the effect of [[self]]-love (‘’Selbstsucht’’''Selbstsucht'') which the subject feels as contentment (‘’arrogantia’’''arrogantia'') of his pleasures, insofar as a glance at this Good renders these pleasures less respectable.<ref> We refer to the quite acceptable [[translation]] by Barni, which dates to 1848, here pp. 247ff247 ff., and to Vorländer's edition (published by Meiner) for the German [[text]], here p. 86.</ref> His very [[words]], as much as they are suggestive.

Let us retain the [[paradox]] that it should be at the [[moment]] when the subject is no longer faced with any object that he encounters a law, one which has no other phenomenon than something already significant, which is obtained from a [[voice]] in the [[conscience]], and which, in articulating itself as a maxim, proposes the order of a purely practical reason or of a will.

For this maxim to become law, it is necessary and it is sufficient that, when tested by such a reason, it can be retained as universal by [[right]] of [[logic]]. Let us recall that this does not mean that this right imposes itself upon everyone, but that it is valid for all cases, or better, that it is not valid in any [[case]] [‘’en ''en aucun cas’’cas''], if it is not vaid valid in every case [‘’en ''en tout cas’’cas''].

But this [[test]], which must be one of reason, pure even if practical, can only succeed for maxims of a type which offers its deduction an [[analytic]] grasp.

This type is illustrated by the trust that is imposed in the restitution of a deposit:<ref> Cf. the Remark to Theorem III of the first chapter of the Analytic of Pure Practical Reason, Barni, p. 163; VorlanderVorländer, p. 31.[767]</ref> the practice of a deposit being based on the two ears which, in order to constitute the depositary, must be plugged up against any condition that could be opposed to this trust. Ín In other words, no deposit without a depositary equal to his charge.

The [[need]] for a more synthetic foundation will be felt, even in this obvious case. Let us illustrate in our turn its default, be it at the price of an irreverence, with a retouched maxim of [[père]] Ubu: “Long "Long live [[Poland]], for if there were no Poland, there would be no Poles.”"

Let no one by some slowness or even emotivity [[doubt]] our attachment here to a liberty without which the nations are in [[mourning]]. But its analytic motivation, while irrefutable, here allows the indefectible to be tempered with the observation that the Poles have always distinguished themselves by a remarkable [[resistance]] to the eclipses of Poland, and even to the deploration which followed.

One rediscovers what founds Kant’s Kant's expression of the regret that, in the experience of the moral law, no intuition offers a phenomenal object.

We would agree that, throughout the ''Critique'', this object slips away. But it can be divined by the trace which is [[left]] by the implacable pursuit which Kant brings to demonstrating its elusiveness and out of which the work draws this [[eroticism]], doubtless innocent, but perceptible, whose well-foundedness we will show in the [[nature]] of the said object.

This is why we [[request]] that those of our readers who are still in a virginal relation to the ‘’Critique’’''Critique'', not having read it, stop at this ver) very point of our lines, to take them up again afterwards. They should check whether it indeed has the effect that we say it has; we promise them, in any case, the pleasure that the exploit communicates.

The [[others]] will now follow us into ‘’Philosophy ''Philosophy in the Bedroom’’Bedroom'', into its [[reading]] at the very least.

It turns out to be a pamphlet, but a dramatic one in which a [[stage]] lighting permits both the dialogue and the [[action]] to continue to the limits of the imaginable: this lighting dims a moment to give way, pamphlet within the pamphlet, to a diatribe entitled: “Frenchmen"Frenchmen, yet [[another]] effort if you [[want]] to be republicans…”republicans . . . "

What is enunciated there is usually [[understood]], if not appreciated, as a mystification. There is no need to be alerted by the recognized import of the [[dream]] wi þin within the dream, that of pointing to a closer relation to the [[real]], in order to see in this derision of historical actuality an indication of the same sort. It is patent, and one would do better to look at it twice.

Let us say that the nerve of the diatribe is given in the maxim which proposes a rulp rule for ‘’jouissance’’jouissance, bizarre in that it makes itself a right in the Kantian fashion, that of posing itself as a universal rule. Let us enunciate the maxim:

“I "I have the right of [[enjoyment]] over [‘’le [[''le droit]] de [[jouir]] de’’de''] your [[body]], anyone can say to me, and [768] I will exercise this right, without any [[limit]] stopping me in the capriciousness of the xactions exactions that I might have the taste to satiate.”"

Such is the rule to wgch which it is claimed that the will of all could be submitted, if only a [[society]]'s constraid constraint were to make it effective.

Black [[humor]] at best, for any reasonable being, to be distributed between the maxim and the consent which it is presumed to have.

But beyond the fact that, if there is something to which the deduction of the ‘’Critique’’ ''Critique'' has accustomed us, it is to distinguish the [[rational]] from the sort of reasonable which is only a confused recourse to the pathological, we now [[know]] that humor is the betrayer [‘’transfuge’’''transfuge''] in the comic of the very function of the "[[super-ego]]." Which, insofar as it animates this [[psychoanalytic]] [[instance]] with an avatar and uproots it from the [[return]] of obscurantism in which it is employed by our contemporaries, can also spice up the Kantian test of the universal rule with the grain of salt which it [[lacks]].

Thenceforth are we not incited to take more seriously what presents itself to us as being not quite serious? We will not ask, to be sure, if it is necessary nor if it is sufficient that a society sanction a right to [[''jouissance]] '' by permitting all to invoke it, for its maxim thenceforth to claim the [[authority]] of the imperative of the moral law.

No positive legality can decide if this maxim can assume the rank of a universal rule, since this rank can eventually just as well oþpose oppose it to all positive legalities.

One would at best demonstrate merely a possibility of generality, which is not [[universality]]; the latter takes things as they are founded and rot not as they work out.

And one would not want to miss this opportunity to denounce the exorbitance of the [[role]] which is conferred to the moment of reciprocity in [[structures]], notably [[subjective]] ones, to which it is intrinsically repugnant.

Reciprocity, a reversible relation because it establishes itself upon a simple line uniting two [[subjects]] who, from their "reciprocal" position, hold this relation to be equivalent, can only situate itself with difficulty as the [[logical]] [[time]] of any crossing-over of the subject in his relation to the [[signifier]], and still less as a stage of any [[769] development]], whether or not it is admissible as [[psychic]] (where it is always easy to [[pass]] the buck to the [[child]] when the pedagogical [[intention]] misses the mark).

Whatever it may be, it is already a point in favor of our maxim that it can serve as the paradigm of a [[statement]] which excludes as such reciprocity (reciprocity and not trading places).

Any judgment about the infamous order that would enthrone our maxim is thus indifferent to the matter, which is to recognize or refuse it the [[character]] of a rule admissible as universal in ethics, the ethics which since Kant is recognized as an unconditional practice of reason.

It is obviously opcessary necessary to recognize in it this character for the simple reason that its very prodgmation proclamation (its kerygma) has the virtue of instituting at once-both this radicaggj ction radical rejection of the pathological, of any concern for a good, for a [[passion]], even for a cani apsioncompassion, that is, the [[rejection]] by which Kant liberates the field of the moral laflaw-and the [[form]] of this law which is also its only substance, inasmuch as the will is only obligated to dismiss from its practice any reason which is not that of its maxim itself.

Certainly these two imperatives, between which moral experience can be stretched, to the breaking-point of lifesarelife, are, in the Sadian paradox, imposed on us as upon the Other, and not as upon ourselves.

But this distance only [[exists]] at first [[sight]], for the moral imperative does no less in a [[latent]] fashion, since it is from the Other that its commandment makes its [[demand]] on us.

One perceives here the naked revelation of what the parody made above of the obvious universality of the [[duty]] of the depositary would lead us to, namely that the bipolarity by which the moral Law institutes itself is nothing other than this [[splitting]] of the subject which occurs in any [[intervention]] of the signifier: namely that of the subject of the [[enunciation]] from the subject of the statement.

The moral Law has no other principle. Still it is necessary that it be patent, lest it lend itself to the mystification felt in the gag of "Long live Poland!"

The [[Subject of the Enunciation|subject of the enunciation]] detaches itself here just as clearly as from [770] "Long live Poland!" where only that ''fun '' which is always evoked by its manifestation is isolated. In order to confirm this perspective one need only refer back to the doctrine upon which Sade himself founds the reign of his principle. It is that of the rights of man. It is because no man can be the property of another man, nor in any way be his privilege, that he cannot make this the pretext to suspend the right of all to enjoyment over him [''droit de tous à jouir de lui''], each according to his taste.<ref>3. Cf. the edition of Sade under review, vol. III, pp. 501-502. [771]</ref> The constraint he would undergo would not be so much one of violence as one of principle, the difficulty for whoever makes it a judgment, being not so much to make him consent to it, as to pronounce it in his place.

In order to confirm this perspective one need only refer back to the [[doctrine]] upon which Sade himself founds the reign of his principle. It is that of thus indeed the [[Rights of Man|rights of man]]. It Other as free, it is because no man can be the property freedom of another manthe Othe, nor in any way be his privilege, that he cannot make this which the pretext to suspend discourse of the right of all to enjoyment over him [‘’droit de tous à jouir de lui’’], each according to his taste.<ref>Cf. jouissance poses as the edition subject of Sade under review, vol. III, pp. 501-502.</ref> The constraint he would undergo would not be so much one of vioÏence as one of principle, the difficulty for whoever makes it a judgmentits enunciation, being not so much to make him consent to it, as to pronounce it in his [[place]].

It is thus indeed the Other as free, it is the [[freedom]] of the Other, which the [[discourse]] of the right to ‘’jouissance’’ poses as the subject of its enunciation, and not in a manner which differs from the ‘’You are’’ ''You are'' [‘’Tu es’’''Tu es''] which is evoked in the murderous [[capital]] [‘’fonds tuant’’''fonds tuant''] of any imperative.

But this discourse is no less determining for the subject of the statement, in that each address suscitates him through its equivocal [[content]]: since ‘’jouissance’’''jouissance'', by shamelessly confessing itself even as it speaks, makes itself one pole of a couple of which the other is in the hollow which it is already drilling in the place of the Other in order to erect the cross of Sadian experience there.

Let us suspend saying what makes it work, in order to recall that [[pain]], which here projects its propriise promise of ignominy, only confirms the express mention that Kant makes of it amoßg among the connotations of moral experience. What it is worth for Sadian experience will be better seen by approaching it through what, in the artifice of the Stoics, would dismantle this experience: contempt.

Imagine a revival of Epictetus in Sadian experience: "See, you broke it," he says, pointing to his leg. Lowering ‘’jouissance’’ ''jouissance'' to the destitution of such an effect where its pursuit stumbles, isn't this to turn it into disgust?

In which it appears that it is ‘’jouissance’’ ''jouissance'' by which Sadian experience is modified. For it forms the [[project]] of honopolizing monopolizing a will only after having already traversed this will in order to install itself in the most intimate part of the subject which it provokes beyond, by [[touching]] its [[modesty]].

Let us interrogate this ‘’jouissance’’''jouissance'', precarious in that it hangs, in the Other, on an echo which it only suscitates as it abolishes it, by joining the intolerable to it. Doesn't it at last appear to us to exalt only in itself, in the manner of another, horrible freedom? We will even see the uncovering of this third term which, according to Kant, would be in default in moral experience. It is namely the object, which, in order to assure it to the will in the fulfillment of the Law, he is constrained to send off into the unthinkability of the Thing-in-itself. This object, isn't it there in Sadian experience, descended from its inaccessibility, and unveiled as ''Dasein'' of the agent of torment?

We will even see Not without retaining the uncovering opacity of the transcendent. For this [[third]] terg which, according object is strangely separated from the subject. Let us observe that the herald of the maxim does not need to Kant, would be in default in moral experienceanything more than a point of emission. It is namely can be a voice on the objectradio, which, in order to assure it to recalling the will in right promoted by the fulfillment of the Lawsupplemental effort to which, he is constrained to send off into the unthinkability of the [[Thing]]-[[in-itself]]. This obje àsnat Sade't it there in Sadian experiences call, descended from its inaccessibilitythe French would have consented, and unveked as [[Dasein]] of the [[agent]] of torment?maxim become, for their regenerated Republic, organic Law.

Not without retaining the opacity Such vocal phenomena, notably those of psychosis, indeed have this aspect of the transcendentobject. For this object is strangely separated And psychoanalysis was not far in its dawn from referring the subject. Let us observe that the herald voice of the maxim does not need conscience to be anything more than a point of emission. It can be a voice on the radio, recalling the right promoted by the supplemental effort to which, at Sade's call, the [[French]] would have consented, and the maxim become, for their regenerated Republic, [[organic]] Lawthem.

Such vocal phenomenaOne sees what motivates Kant to hold this object as having eluded any determination by the transcendental aesthetic, notably those even if it does not fail to appear in some protruberance of [[psychosis]]the phenomenal veil, lacking neither hearth nor home, nor time in intuition, indeed have this aspect of lacking neither a mode which is situated in the object. And [[psychoanalysis]] was unreal, nor effect in reality: it is not far only that Kant's phenomenology is in its dawn from referring default here, but that the voice , however mad, imposes the idea of conscience to themthe subject, and that the object of the law must not suggest a malignity of the real God.

One sees what motivates Kant Assuredly Christianity has educated men to pay little attention to hold this object as having eluded any determination any the [[transcendental]] aestheticjouissance of God, even if it does not fail to appear in some protrubéfance and that is how Kant slips by his voluntarism of the phenomenal [[veil]]Law-for-the-Law, [[lacking]] neither hearth nor homewhich really piles it on, nor time in intuitionso to speak, lacking neither a mode which is situated in with respect to the unreal, nor effect in [[reality]]: it is not only ataraxia of Stoic experience. One might think that Kant's is under pressure from what he hears [[phenomenology772]] is in default heretoo closely, not from Sade, but that the voicefrom some mystic nearer to home, however mad, imposes in the [[idea]] of the subject, and sigh which stifles what he glimpses beyond having seen that the object of the law must not [[suggest]] a malignity of [[The Real|the real]] his God.is faceless: ''Grimmigkeit''?

Pshaw! ‘’Schwärmereien’’''Schwärmereien'', black swarms, we expel you in order to return to the function of [[presence]] in the Sadian [[fantasy]].

This fantasy has a [[structure]] that one will find further along and in which the object is only one of the [[terms]] in which the quest which it [[figures]] can die out. When ‘’jouissance’’ ''jouissance'' is petrified in it, it becomes the black [[fetish]] in which the form--most definitely offered in such a place and time, and still today, for one to adore the god--can be recognized.

It is this which befalls the executor in [[sadistic]] experience when, at its most extreme, his presence is reduced to being no more than its [[instrument]].

But that his ‘’jouissance’’ ''jouissance'' congeals there, does not withdraw it from the humility of an act to which he cannot but come as a being of flesh and, to the bones, the serf of pleasure.

[[Desire]], which is the henchman [‘’suppôt’’''suppôt''] of this splitting of the subject, would doubtless put up with being called will-to-‘’jouissance’’''jouissance''. But this appellation would not render desire more worthy of the will which it invokes within tþe the Other, in tempting this will to the extremity of its [[division]] from its pathos; for to do this, desire sets forth beaten, promised to [[impotence]].

Because it sets forth submitted to pleasure, whose law is to turn it always too short in its aim. A [[homeostasis]] which is always too quickly recovered by the [[living]] being at the lowest threshold of the tension upon which it subsists. Always precocious is the fall of the wing, with which he is given to [[sign]] the reproduction of his form. Nevertheless this wing here has the task of raising itself to the function of figuring the link of sex to [[death]]. Let us leave it to rest behind its Eleusinian veil.

Thus pleasure, down there the stimulating rival of will, is here no more than a faltering accomplice. In ‘’jouissance’’jouissance's own time, it would be simply out of play, if fantasy did not intervene to sustain it by the very discord to which it succumbs.

To put it another way, fantasy constitutes the pleasure proper to [773] desire. And let us come back to the fact that desire is not subject, in that it cannot be indicated anywhere in a signifier of any demand whatsoever, since it is not articulatable there even though it is articulated in it.

[[Physiological]] experience demonstrates that the cycle of pain is longer in every respect than that o£ of pleasure, since a stimulation provokes it at the point where pleasure ends. However prolonged one supposes it to be, it nevertheless has, like pleasure, its term: the fainting of the subject.

Such is the vital given from which fantasy will profit in order to fix, in the sensible of Sadian experience, the desire which appears in its agent. Fantasy is defined by the most general form which it receives from an [[algebra]] which we have constructed to this end, that is the [[formula]] ($Oa), in which the stamp is read "desire of," to be read identically in the retrograde direction, introducing an [[identity]] which is founded upon an absolute nonreciprocity. (A relation which is coextensive with the [[formations]] of the subject.)

Be Fantasy is defined by the most general form which it receives from an algebra which we have constructed to this end, that as it mayis the formula ($◊a), in which the stamp is read "desire of, this form turns out " to be particularly easy to animate read identically in the [[present]] case. It articulatesretrograde direction, in fact, the pleasure for introducing an identity which is founded upon an instrument absolute nonreciprocity. (‘’[[objet]] a’’ of the formula) has been substituted, A relation which is coextensive with the sort of sustained division formations of the subject that the experience ordains.)

Which is only obtained inasmuch Be that as its [[apparent]] agent congeals it may, this form turns out to be particularly easy to animate in the rigidity present case. It articulates, in fact, the pleasure for which an instrument (''objet a'' of the objectformula) has been substituted, in with the sort of sustained division of the aim subject that his subjective division be entirely sent back to him from the Otherexperience ordains.

A quadripartite structure, given Which is only obtained inasmuch as its apparent agent congeals in the rigidity of the [[unconscious]]object,is always to be required in the [[construction]] of a aim that his subjective ordinance. Our didactic schemas [[satisfy]] this requirementdivision be entirely sent back to him from the Other.

Let us modulate A quadripartite structure, given the Sadian fantasy with unconscious, is always to be required in the construction of a new one of these subjective ordinance. Our didactic schemas:satisfy this requirement.

Let us modulate the Sadian fantasy with a new one of these schemas: [[Image:schema1.jpg|center]774]

The bottom line [[satisfiesImage:Kws-schema1.PNG|center]] the order of the fantasy inasmuch as it supports the utopia of desire.

The sinuous bottom line inscribes satisfies the [[chain]] which permits a calculus of the subject. It is directed, and its direction constitutes an order in which the [[appearance]] of the ‘’objet a’’ in the place of the [[cause]] is made clear by the universality of its relation to the [[category]] of [[causality]], which, in forcing fantasy inasmuch as it supports the threshold utopia of Kant's transcendental deduction, would inaugurate a new Critique of Reason hinging upon the impuredesire.

There remains The sinuous line inscribes the V chain whichpermits a calculus of the subject. It is directed, and its direction constitutes an order in this place, holding which the appearance of the high ground, appears to impose ''objet a'' in the will [‘’volont é’’] dominating place of the [[whole]] affair, but whose form also evokes cause is made clear by the union universality of what it [[divides]] while holding it together with a vel, that is its relation to say in posing the [[choice]] category of causality, which will make , in forcing the $ ([[barred]] S) threshold of practical reasonKant's transcendental deduction, out would inaugurate a new Critique of Reason hinging upon the S, raw subject of pleasure ("pathological" subject)impure.

It is thus indeed There remains the will of Kant V which is encountered ,in this place, holding the place of this will which can be called-to-‘’jouissance’’ only high ground, appears to explain that it is impose the subject reconstituted from [will [alienation]''volonte''] at dominating the price of being no more than whole affair, but whose form also evokes the instrument union of ‘’jouissance’’. Thus Kant, in being tortured [‘’mis à la question’’] "what it divides while holding it together with Sadea vel," that is to say with Sade filling in posing the choice which will make the office$ (barred S) of practical reason, for our [[thought]] as in his [[sadism]]out of the S, raw subject of an instrument, confesses to what is plain to see about the pleasure ("What does it want? pathological" which henceforth is not [[missing]] for anyonesubject).

The [[graph]] may now It is thus indeed the will of Kant which is encountered in the place of this will which can be used in its succinct form, in order called-to-''jouissance'' only to find explain that it is the way through subject reconstituted from alienation at the forest price of being no more than the fantasyinstrument of ''jouissance''. Thus Kant, in being tortured [''mis à la question''] "with Sade, which " that is to say with Sade filling the office, for our thought as in his work develops on sadism, of an instrument, confesses to what is plain to see about the level of a [[system]]"What does it want? " which henceforth is not missing for anyone.

One will see that there is a statics of the fantasy, by which the point of [[aphanisis]], supposed in $, should be indefinitely recessed in the [[imagination]]. Whence the hardly believable survival that Sade grants the victims of the trials and tribulations which he inflicts upon them in his fable. The moment of their death seems to graph may now be motivated only by the need to replace them used in a [[combinatory]]its succinct form, which alone requires their [[multiplicity]]. Unique (Justine) or multiple, the [[victim]] has the monotony of the relation of the subject in order to find the signifier, in which, to trust our graph, she consists. Being way through the ‘’objet a’’ forest of the fantasy, situating itself which Sade in his work develops on the real, the troupe level of tormenters (see Juliette) can have more varietya system.

The requirement, in the [[figure]] One will see that there is a statics of the victims, for a beauty always classed as incomparable (as well as inalterable, as we have just said) is another affairfantasy, by which cannot be taken care the point of with some banal postulatesaphanisis, quickly fabricatedsupposed in $, on [[sexual]] attractionshould be indefinitely recessed in the imagination. One will rather see in it Whence the hardly believable survival that Sade grants the grimace victims of what we have demonstrated, the trials and tribulations which he inflicts upon them in [[tragedy]], about the function his fable. The moment of beauty: a [[barrier]] so extreme as their death seems to forbid access be motivated only by the need to replace them in a fundamental [[horror]]combinatory, which alone requires their multiplicity. Dream Unique (Justine) or multiple, the victim has the monotony of the ‘’Antigone’’ relation of [[Sophocles]] and the subject to the signifier, in which, to trust our graph, she consists. Being the ''objet a'' of the moment when fantasy, situating itself in the Epoç AvtXare µdXav<ref> [[Antigone]]real, verse 78 I .</ref> explodesthe troupe of tormenters (see Juliette) can have more variety.

This excursion would not The requirement, in the figure of the victims, for a beauty always classed as incomparable (as well as inalterable, as we have just said) is another affair, which cannot be appropriate heretaken care of with some banal postulates, if quickly fabricated, on sexual attraction. One will rather see in it did not introduce what could be called the discordance grimace of what we have demonstrated, in [[Two Deaths|two deaths]775]tragedy, introduced by about the [[existence]] function of condemnationbeauty: a barrier so extreme as to forbid access to a fundamental horror. The between-two-deaths Dream of this side [‘’lthe ''Antigone''en-deço’’] is essential to show us that it is none other than of Sophocles and of the one by which moment when the beyond [‘’lἜρως ἀνίκατε μάχαν<ref>''Antigone''au-delà’’] sustains itself, verse 781.</ref> explodes.

It can This excursion would not be clearly seen in appropriate here, if it did not introduce what could be called the paradox which Sade's position with respect to hell constitutes. The idea discordance of helltwo deaths, a hundred [[times]] refuted introduced by him and damned as the means existence of subjection used by condemnation. The between-two-deaths of this side [[religious]''l'en- deçà''] tyranny, curiously returns is essential to motivate show us that it is none other than the actions of one of his heroes, nevertheless among those most enamoured with libertine subversion in its reasonable form, namely the hideous Saint-Fond.<ref> Cf. Histoire de Juliette, published by Jean-Jacques Pauvert, vol. II, pp. 196ff.</ref> The practices whpge utmost tortures he imposes upon his victims are founded on the [[belief]] that he can render the torment they cause eternal for them in which the beyond. A conduct and a belief whose authenticity the character underlines by his concealment of the former from the [[gaze]] of his accomplices, and by his difficulty in explaining the latter. Thus we hear him a few pages later attempt to render them plausible in his discourse by the [[myth]''l' au-de la''] of an attraction tending to bring together the "particles of evilsustains itself."

This incoherence It can be clearly seen in the paradox which Sade's position with respect to hell constitutes. The idea of hell, neglected a hundred times refuted by Sadian specialists, who are sort him and damned as the means of hagiographers themselvessubjection used by religious tyranny, would be clarified by noting curiously returns to motivate the termactions of one of his heroes, formally expressed nevertheless among those most enamoured with libertine subversion in his [[writing]]its reasonable form, of namely the [[second death]]hideous Saint-Fond.<ref> Cf. ''Histoire de Juliette'', published by Jean-Jacques Pauvert, vol. II, pp. l 96ff. </ref> The assurance which practices whose utmost tortures he imposes upon his victims are founded on the belief that he expects from it against can render the horrific routine of nature (torment they cause eternal for them in the one which, to listen to him elsewhere, crime has beyond. A conduct and a belief whose authenticity the function character underlines by his concealment of breaking) would require it to be pushed to an extremity where the fainting former from the gaze of his accomplices, and by his difficulty in explaining the subject would be doubled: with which he symbolizes latter. Thus we hear him a few pages later attempt to render them plausible in his discourse by the [[wish]] that myth of an attraction tending to bring together the decomposed element "particles of our body, in order not to reassemble, be themselves annihilatedevil."

That Freud should nevertheless recognize the dynamism of this wish<ref>Subjective dynamism: [[physical]] death gives its object to the wish of the second death.</ref> This incoherence in certain cases of his practiceSade, that he should clearlyneglected by Sadian specialists, perhaps too clearly, reduce its function to an analogy with the [[Pleasure Principle|pleasure principle]], regulating it upon a "death" "drive" (demand)who are sort of hagiographers themselves, this is what will not would be consented to, especially clarified by someone who has not even been able to learn in noting the [[technique]] which he owes to Freudterm, any more than formally expressed in his schoolingwriting, that language has an effect which is not utilitarian, or ornamental at of the very mostsecond death. For him, Freud is useful in congresses. Doubtless, in The assurance which he expects from it against the eyes horrific routine of such puppets, the millions of men for whom the pain of existing is nature (the original evidence for the practices of salvation one which they establish in their [[faith]] in [[Buddha]], must be underdeveloped; or ratherto listen to him elsewhere, as for Buloz, director crime has the function of ‘’La revue des deux mondes’’, who puts breaking) would require it quite clearly to Renan<ref>Cf. Renan's preface be pushed to his Nouvelles études d'histoire religieuse an extremity where the fainting of 1884.</ref> when refusing his article on [[Buddhism]], this after Burnouf, or some time the subject would be doubled: with which he symbolizes in the '50s (wish that the decomposed elements of the last century)our body, in order not to reassemble, for them it is "[[impossible]] that there are [[people]] that dumbbe themselves annihilated."

Have they not, if they think they have a better ear than That Freud should nevertheless recognize the rest dynamism of psychiatrists, heard this pain in wish<ref>Subjective dynamism: physical death gives its object to the wish of the pure second death. [[state776]] mould </ref> in certain cases of his practice, that he should dearly, perhaps too dearly, reduce its function to an analogy with the song of some [[patients]]pleasure principle, regulating it upon a "death" "drive" (demand), this is what will not be consented to, especially by someone who are called melancholics?has not even been able to learn in the technique which he owes to Freud, any more than in his schooling, that language has an effect which is not utilitarian, or ornamental at the very most. For him, Freud is useful in congresses.

Nor gathered one Doubtless, in the eyes of such puppets, the millions of those [[dreams]] after men for whom the pain of existing is the original evidence for the practices of salvation which the dreamer remains overwhelmedthey establish in their faith in Buddha, from havingmust be underdeveloped; or rather, in a condition which is felt as an inexhaustible rebirthfor Buloz, been director of ''La revue des deux mondes'', who puts it quite dearly to Renan<ref>Cf. Renan's preface to his ''Nouvelles etudes d'histoire religieuse'' of 1884. [777]</ref> when refusing his article on Buddhism, this after Burnouf, or some time in the depths '50s (of the pain of existing?last century), for them it is "impossible that there are people that dumb."

Or to put back in their place these torments of hellHave they not, which if they think they have never been imagined beyond those a better ear than the rest of which psychiatrists, heard this pain in the traditional maintenance is assured in this [[world]] by menpure state mould the song of some patients, would we beseech them to think of our daily [[life]] as something which ought to be eternalwho are called melancholics?

There is nothing to be hoped forNor gathered one of those dreams after which the dreamer remains overwhelmed, even from despairhaving, against in a stupiditycondition which is felt as an inexhaustible rebirth, finally sociological, and which we only mention been in order that no one on the [[outside]] expect much, concerning Sade, from the circles where there is a more assured experience depths of the forms pain of sadism.existing?

Or to put back in their place these torments of hell, which have never been imagined beyond those of which the traditional maintenance is assured in this world by men, would we beseech them to think of our daily life as something which ought to be eternal? There is nothing to be hoped for, even from despair, against a stupidity, finally sociological, and which we only mention in order that no one on the outside expect much, concerning Sade, from the circles where there is a more assured experience of the forms of sadism. Notably about the equivocality of what circulates concerning the relation of reversion which would unite sadism to an idea of [[masochism]] of which it is hard to imagine from the outside the pell-mell it supports. It would be better to find in it the worth of a little story, a famous one, about the exploitation of man by man: the definition of [[capitalism]] as one [[knows]]. And [[socialism]]? It's the opposite.

There are still some scribblers who strive for a more fashionable look. They go in for existentialist custom tailoring, or more soberly, personalist ready-made. This leads to the statement that the [[sadist]] "denies the existence of the Other." This is precisely, it will be admitted, what has just appeared in our [[analysis]].

To follow it, isn't it rather This leads to the statement that sadism rejects the pain sadist "denies the existence of existing into the Other, but without [[seeing]] that by this slant he himself changes into an "eternal object,." if Mr. Whitehead is willing to give us back this term?

This is precisely, it will be admitted, what has just appeared in our analysis. To follow it, isn't it rather that sadism rejects the pain of existing into the Other, but without seeing that by this slant he himself changes into an "eternal object," if Mr. Whitehead is willing to give us back this term? But why couldn't we hold it as a common good? Isn't that, redemption, immortal soul, the status of the [[Christian]]? Not so fast, so as not to go too far.

For here we propose a duty The delegation which Sade makes to all, in his Republic, of the right to ''jouissance'', is not translated on our readers.graph by a symmetrical reversion upon any axis or center, but merely by a rotation of a quarter of a circle, that is:

The delegation which Sade makes to all, in his Republic, of the right to ‘’jouissance’’, is not translated on our graph by a symmetrical reversion upon any axis or [[Image:Kws-schema2.PNG|center, but merely by a rotation of a quarter of a circle, that is:]]

[[Image:schema2(Let us remark that only the First Consul<ref>It should not be understood by this that we are crediting the legend according to which he personally intervened in Sade's detention.jpg|center]]Cf. Gilbert Lely, ''Vie du Marquis de Sade'', vol. II, Paris, Gallimard, 1957, pp. 577 -580, and footnote 1 of p. 580.</ref> seals this division with his administratively confirmed effect of alienation.)

VThis division here reunites, as S, the willraw subject incarnating the hero-[778] ism proper to-‘’jouissance’’the pathological, no longer permits in the contestation species of its naturethe fidelity to Sade which those who were at first complacent toward his excesses will demonstrate, his wife, for it has passed into the moral constraint here implacably exercised by the Présidente de Montreuil upon the subject of whom it is evident that his division does sister-in-law-his valet, why not require being joined in a single body?-other devotions effaced from his history.

For Sade, the $ (Let us remark barred S), we see at last that only the First Consul<ref>.It should not be understood by this , as subject, it is in his disappearance that we are crediting the legend according to which he personally intervened in Sade's detentionsigns, things having reached their term. Cf. Gilbert LélyUnbelievably, Vie du Marquis [[de Sade]]disappears without anything, vol. IIeven less than in the case of Shakespeare, [[Paris]]remaining of his image, Gallimard, 1957, pp. 577-580, and footnote 1 after in his will he had ordered that a thicket efface even the trace upon the stone of p. 580.</ref> seals this division with a name that would seal hisadministratively confirmed effect of alienationdestiny.)

This division here reunitesΜή ϕῦναι<ref>Choir of ''Oedipus at Colonus'', as Sverse 1225.</ref>, the raw subject incarnating the heroism proper not to be born, his malediction, less holy than that of Oedipus, does not bear him among the pathologicalGods, but is eternalized: a) in the [[species]] work of which, dismissing it with the back of his hand, Jules Janin shows us the fidelity to Sade unsinkable survival, having it saluted by the books which those who were at first complacent toward his excesses will demonstratemask it, his wifeif we believe him, his sister-in-law-his valetevery respectable library, why not?-other devotions effaced from his [[history]]Saint John Chrysostom or the ''Pensées''.

For Sade's work is boring, the $ (barred S)you agree in saying, we see at last thatyes, as subjectthick as thieves, Mister Judge and Mister Academician, but still able to make you one by the other, one and the other, it is one in his [[disappearance]] that he [[signs]]the other, things having reached their termget upset.<ref> Cf. UnbelievablyMaurice Garcon, ''L'affaire Sade [[disappears]] without anything'', Jean-Jacques Pauvert, even less than 1957. He cites J. Janin in the case ''La revue de Paris'' of [[Shakespeare]]1834 in his plea, pp. 84-90. Second reference: Jean Cocteau, as cited witness, remaining of his [[image]]writes that Sade is boring, after not without having recognized in his will he had ordered that a thicket efface even him the trace upon philosopher and the storie of a name that would seal his destinymoralizer.[779] </ref>

Mt¡ <põvat,<ref> Choir of [[Oedipus]] at Colonus, verse 1225.</ref> For a fantasy is indeed quite upsetting since one does not know where to be [[born]]set it, his malediction, less holy than that of Oedipusbecause it is there, does not bear him among the Godswholly in its nature as fantasy which only has reality as discourse and which expects nothing from your powers, but is eternalized:which demands that you set yourself straight with respect to your desires.

a) in Let the work of reader now approach with reverence these exemplary figures which, dismissing it with the back of his hand, Jules Janin shows us in the unsinkable survival, having it saluted by the [[books]] which mask it, if we believe himSadian bedroom, arrange and undo themselves in every respectable [[library]], Saint John Chrysostom or the ‘’Pensées’’a fairground rite. "The posture breaks up."

Sade's work is boringCeremonial pause, you agree in saying, yes, as thick as thieves, Mister Judge and Mister Academician, but still able to make you one by the other, one and the other, one in the other, get upset.<ref> Cf. Maurice Garçon, L'afaire Sade, Jean-Jacques Pauvert, 1957. He cites J. Janin in La revue de Paris of 1834 in his plea, pp. 84-90. Second reference:Jean Cocteau, as cited [[witness]], writes that Sade is boring, not without having recognized in him the [[philosopher]] and the moralizersacred scansion.</ref>

For a fantasy is indeed quite upsetting since one does not know where to set itSalute the objects of the law, because it is there, wholly in its nature as fantasy of which only has reality as discourse and which expects you know nothing from your powers, but which [[demands]] that you set yourself straight with respect for lack of knowing how to find your hesiresway among the desires of which they are the cause.

Let the reader now approach with reverence these exemplary figures which, in the Sadian bedroom, arrange and undo themselves in a fairground [[rite]]''It's good to be charitable.“The posture breaks up.”''

Ceremonial pause, sacred scansion.Salute the objects of the law, of which you know nothing, for [[lack]] of [[knowing]] how to find your way among the desires of which they are ''But with whom? That's the causepoint.''

‘’It's good A certain M. Verdoux resolves it every day by putting women in the oven until he himself ends up in the electric chair. He thought that his dear ones wanted to live comfortably. More enlightened, the Buddha allowed those who did not know the road to devour him. Despite this eminent patronage, which could very well only be charitable’’‘’But with whombased on a misunderstanding (it is by no means sure that the tigress likes to eat Buddha), M.? ThatVerdoux's abnegation derives from an error which merits severity since a small grain of ''Critique'', it's not expensive, would have allowed him to avoid it. No one doubts that the pointpractice of Reason would have been more economical as well as more legal, should his dear ones have had to go without.’’

A certain M. Verdoux resolves it every day by putting [[women]] in the oven until he himself ends up in the electric [[chair]]. He thought that his dear ones wanted to live comfortably. More enlightened"But what," will you ask, the Buddha allowed those who did not know the road to devour him"are all these metaphors and why . Despite this eminent patronage, which could very well only be based on a misunderstanding (it is by no means sure that the tigress likes to eat Buddha), M. Verdoux's abnegation derives from an error which merits severity since a small grain of ‘’Critique’’, it's not expensive, would have allowed him to avoid it. No one doubts that the practice of Reason would have been more economical as well as more [[legal]], should his dear ones have had to go without."

"But what," will you ask, “are all these metaphors and why. . . .”Molecules, monstruously assembling here for a spintrian ‘’jouissance’’''jouissance'', awaken us to the existence of others, more commonly encountered in life, whose equivocalities we have just evoked. Suddenly they are more respectable than the latter, appearing purer in their valencies.

Desires . . . here alone to [[bind]] them, and exalted by making [[manifest]] that desire is the desire of the Other.

Whoever has read us this far knows that [[desire,]] more exactly, is supported by a fantasy which has at least one foot in the Other, and precisely the one that counts, even and particularly if it happens to limp.

The object, as we have shown in [[Freudian]] experience, the [[object of desire]] where it proposes itself in its nakedness, is only the slag of a fantasy in which the subject does not return from his syncope. It's a case of necrophilia.

It is in this that it is just as ungraspable as the object of the Law is according to Kant. But here the suspicion imposed by this connection begins to appear. Doesn't the moral law [[represent]] desire in the case where it is not the subject but the object which is in default?

The subject, by being the sole party to remain, in the form of the voice, within, with neither head nor tail to what it most often says, doesn't he seem to [[signify]] himself enough by the bar with object which he is bastardized by the signifier $, dropped from the fantasy (ŠOa) from which it both derives and drifts away in default? [‘’dont il dérive, dans les deux sens de ce terme’’780]?

If this [[symbol]] returns The subject, by being the sole party to its place remain, in the inner commandment at which Kant marvelsform of the voice, within, with neither head nor tail to what it opens our eyes most often says, doesn't he seem to signify himself enough by the [[encounter]] bar with whichhe is bastardized by the signifier $, dropped from the Isaw to desirefantasy ($◊a) from which it both derives and drifts away [''dont il dérive, goes further than the elusion of their object, for the one as for the other.dans les deux sens de ce terme'']?

It is in If this encounter that symbol returns to its place the equivocality of inner commandment at which Kant marvels, it opens our eyes to the [[word]] freedom plays: upon encounter which, laying a heavy handfrom the Law to desire, goes further than the elusion of their object, for the moralist always appears even more impudent than imprudentone as for the other.

Let us rather listen to Kant himself illustrate it one more time:<ref> Barni, p. 173. It is the Remark to Problem II (Aufgabe) of Theorem III of the first chapter of the Analytic, Vorländer edition, p. 25.</ref> "Suppose," he says, "in this encounter that someone says his lust is irresistible when the desired object and opportunity are present. Ask him whether he would not [[control]] his passion if, in front equivocality of the house where he has this opportunity, a gallows were erected on word ''freedom'' plays: upon which he would be hanged immediately after gratifying his lust. We do not have to guess very long what his answer would be. But ask him whether he thinks it would be possible for him to overcome his love of life, however great it may be, if his sovereign threatened him with the same sudden death<ref> The text reads: with a death without delay.</ref> unless he made a [[false]] deposition against an honorable man whom the ruler wished to destroy under laying a plausible pretext. Whether he would or not he perhaps will not venture to say; but that it should be possible for him he would certainly admit without [[hesitation]]. He judges, therefore, that he can do something because he knows he ought, and he recognizes that he is free-a fact whichheavy hand, without the moral law, would have remained unknown to himmoralist always appears even more impudent than imprudent."

The first response here supposed of a subject about whom we are first warned that for him riuch happens in words, makes Let us think that we have not been given rather listen to Kant himself illustrate it one more time:<ref> Barni, p. 173. It is the Remark to Problem II (''Aufgabe'') of Theorem III of the [[letter]]first chapter of ''the Analytic''. Vorländer edition, p.25</ref> "Suppose," he says, even though "that's someone says his lust is irresistible when the whole pointdesired object and opportunity are present. It's thatAsk him whether he would not control his passion if, in order to compose itfront of the house where he has this opportunity, one would rather rely a gallows were erected on a personage whose scruples we which he would be bound [‘’en tout cas’’] hanged immediately after gratifying his lust. We do not have to offend, for guess very long what his answer would be. But ask him whether he thinks it would never [‘’en aucun’’] stoop be possible for him to eating that kind overcome his love of bread. He is namely that [[ideal]] bourgeois before whom elsewherelife, doubtless in order to check Fontenellehowever great it may be, if his sovereign threatened him with the overly gallant centenarian, Kant declares that he tips his hat.same sudden death<ref> Cf p. 253 of Barni's translation The text reads: with p. 90 in Vorlander's editiona death without delay.[781]</ref>unless he made a false deposition against an honorable man whom the ruler wished to destroy under a plausible pretext. Whether he would or not he perhaps will not venture to say; but that it should be possible for him he would certainly admit without hesitation. He judges, therefore, that he can do something because he knows he ought, and he recognizes that he is free--a fact which, without the moral law, would have remained unknown to him."

We will thus exempt The first response here supposed of a subject about whom we are first warned that for him much happens in words, makes us think that we have not been given it to the naughty boy from testifying under oathletter, even though that's the whole point. But It's that, in order to compose it might happen that a supporter of passion, and one who would rather rely on a personage whose scruples we would be blind enough bound [''en tout cas''] to mix a point of honor in with itoffend, could give Kant problems, forcing him for he would never [''en aucun''] stoop to recognize eating that kind of bread. He is namely that no occasion will more certainly precipitate some men toward their endideal bourgeois before whom elsewhere, than to see it offered as a challenge doubtless in order tocheck Fontenelle, the overly gallant centenarian, or even Kant declares that he tips his hat. <ref>Cf. p. 253 of Barni's translation with p. 90 in contempt of, the gallowsVorländer’s edition. [782]</ref>

We will thus exempt the naughty boy from testifying under oath. But it might happen that a supporter of passion,and one who would be blind enough to mix a point of honor in with it, could give Kant problems, forcing him to recognize that no occasion will more certainly precipitate some men toward their end, than to see it offered as a challenge to, or even in contempt of, the gallows. For the gallows is not the Law, it can't even be driven around by it. The only bus is the paddy wagon, and the police might well be the state, as is said among the followers of [[Hegel]]. But the Law is something else, as has been known since Antigone.

And it is this to which desire in the maxim ‘’Et ''Et non propter vitam vivendi perdere causas’’ causas'' can pass in a moral being, and, precisely because he is moral, pass to the rank of a [[categorical imperative]], however little he may be up against the wall. Which is precisely where he is now being pushed.

Desire, what is called desire suffices to make life have no [[sense]] in playing a coward. And when the law is truly there, desire doesn't hold, but that's because the law and [[repressed]] desire are one and the same thing; this is even Freud's discovery. We score a point at halftime, professor.

Let us place the credit for our success in the ranks of the pawns, queen of the [[game]] as we know. For we have brought into play neither our Knight, with which we could have easily won the game, for it would have been Sade, whom we believe to be well-qualified in this matter-nor our Bishop [‘’Fou’’''Fou''], nor our Rook [‘’Tour’’''Tour''], the rights of man, freedom of thought, your body is your own, nor even our Queen [‘’Dame’’''Dame''], an appropriate figure to designate the prowesses of [[courtly love]].

For if I a up argue that Sade, for a few [[jokes]], ran the risk, in [[full]] knowledge (see what he makey makes of his "escapades," legal or not), of being imprisoned during a third of his life, jokes which doubtless were a little too much in earnest, but all the more demonstrative with respect to their recompense, I draw upon myself Pinel and his pinellry which comes up again. Moral insanity, it opines. A lovely busi- nessbusiness, in any case. I am hegrecalled here recalled to reverence for Pinel, to whom we owe one of the most noble steps ¾fg manityof humanity. -- Thirteen years of Charenton for Sade, in fact, come from this ste put step. --But it wasn't his place. -- That's just it. It is this very step which leads hi him there. For as to his place, everything which thinks agrees about this, it was elsewhere. But see: those who think well, think it was outside, and the well-thinkers, since Royer-Collard, who demanded it at the time, saw it in jail, even on the scaffold. It is precisely in this that Pinel Pine! is a moment of thought. Willingly or unwillingly, he is the guarantee for the prostration to which, to the left and to the right ought , thought submits the liberties which the [[Revolution]] had promulgated in its name.

But also to draw upon ourselves the frowns of those who don't find it very nourishing. They are numerous these days. A renewal of the [[conflict]] between [[needs]] and desires, where as if by [[chance]] it is the Law which empties the shell.

For the move which would check the Kantian apolo ueapologue, [[Courtly Love|courtly love]] offers no less tempting a path, but one which requires being erudite. Being erudite by position, one draws the erudite upon oneself, and as for the erudite in this field, bring on the clowns.

But someone who lacks it, himself, totally and absolutely, if you've remarked, is Sade. This threshold would perhaps be fatal to him and a preface is not made for disservices.<ref> [Added in 1971] What would I have written for a postface?</ref> Thus let us pass to the second moment of Kant's apologue. It is no [783] more conclusive to his ends. For supposing that his helot has the least idea of what's happening, he will ask him [i.e., Kant] if by chance it would be his duty to bear true witness, in case this were the means by which the tyrant could satisfy his wishes. Should he say that the innocent is a Jew for example, if he truly is ,before a tribunal, such as has been seen, which would find in this something to condemn --or yet that he is an atheist, just when it is possible that he himself is a man who would better understand the weight of the accusation than a consistory, which only wants a dossier--and the deviation from the "line," will he plead it not guilty in a place and time when the rule of the game is self-criticism --and then what? after all, is an innocent ever spotless, will he say what he knows?

Thus let us pass to One can erect as a duty the second moment maxim of Kant's apologue. It is no more conclusive to his ends. For supposing that his helot has countering the least idea desire of what's happening, he will ask him [i.e.the tyrant, Kant] if by chance it would be his duty the tyrant is the one who arrogates to himself the power to bear true witness, in case this were enslave the means by which desire of the tyrant could satisfy his wishesOther.

Should he say that Thus upon the two lengths (and the innocent is a Jew for exampleprecarious mediation), if he truly is, before from which Kant makes himself a tribunal, such as has been seen, which would find lever in this something order to condemn -or yet show that he is an [[atheist]]the Law puts into balance not just pleasure, just when it is possible that he himself is a man who would better [[understand]] but also pain, happiness, or even the weight pressure of poverty, even love of the accusation than a consistorylife, which only wants a dossier-and the deviation from the "lineeverything pathological," will he plead it turns out that desire can not [[guilty]] in a place and time when only have the rule of the game is self-criticism-and then what? after allsame success, is an innocent ever spotless, will he say what he knows? but can obtain it with greater legitimacy.

One can erect as a duty the maxim of countering the desire of the tyrant, But if the tyrant is advantage which we have allowed the one who arrogates ''Critique'' to himself take from the [[power]] alacrity of its argumentation owed something to our desire to know what it wanted to enslave get at, could not the desire ambiguity of this success turn back its movement toward a revision of the Other.extorted concessions?

Thus upon the two lengths (and Such as, for example, the precarious mediation), from disgrace which Kant makes himself a lever in order to show that the Law puts into [[balance]] not just pleasure, but also painsomewhat hastily, happinesswas brought upon all objects that propose themselves as goods, or even as being incapable of causing the pressure harmony of povertywills: simply by introducing competition. Thus Milan, even love of life, everything pathologicalin which Charles V and François I, knew what it turns out that desire can not only have cost them both to see the same success, but can obtain it with greater legitimacygood.

But if the advantage which we have allowed the ‘’Critique’’ This is indeed to take from misrecognize the alacrity nature of its argumentation owed something to our desire to know what it wanted to get at, could not the ambiguay object of this success turn back its movement toward a revision of the extorted concessions?desire.

Such Which we can only introduce here by recalling what we teach about desire, to be formulated as, for example, desire of the disgrace whichOther, somewhat hastily, was brought upon all objects that propose themselves as goods, as being incapable since it is originally desire of causing its desire. Which makes the [[harmony]] of wills: simply by introducing competitiondesires conceivable, but not without danger. Thus Milan, For the reason that in linking up in a chain which Charles V and François I knew what it cost them both to see the same good. This is indeed to misrecognize the nature of the resembles Breughel's procession [[Object of Desire|object of desire784]].

Which we can only introduce here by recalling what we teach about desire, to be formulated as desire of the Other, since it is originally desire of its desire. Which makes the harmony of desires conceivable, but not without [[danger]]. For the reason that in linking up in a chain which resembles Breughel's procession of the blind, they may indeed all be holding hands, but none knows where all are going.

Even lacking, [[The Gaze|the gaze]] is there indeed an object which presents each desire with its universal rule by materializing its cause, by binding it to the division "between center and [[absence]]" of the subject.

[[Displeasure]] is recognized by psychoanalytic experience as giving a pretext to the [[repression]] of desire, in that it is produced on the path of its [[satisfaction]]: but also as giving the form this satisfaction itself takes in the [[return of the repressed]].

Similarly pleasure's aversion to recognize the law is doubled, by supporting that desire to sytisfy satisfy it which is [[defense]].

If happiness is the uninterrupted agreeableness, for the subject, of his life, as the ‘’Critique’’<ref> Theorem II of the first chapter of the Analytic, in Vorländer's edition, p. 25, completely mistranslated by Barni, p. 159.</ref> quite classically defines it, it is clear that it is refused to whomever does not [[renounce]] the path of desire. This [[renunciation]] can be willed, but at the price of the truth of man, which is made clear enough by the reprobation incurred before the cornmon ideal by the Epicureans, and even by the Stoics. Their ataraxia destitute þeir wisdom. They are given no credit for lowering desire, for not only is the Law not held to be raised accordingly; but it is thus, whether one knows it or not, that it is felt to be thrown down.

Sadeas the ''Critique''<ref>Theorem II of the first chapter of the ''Analytic'', ex-noblein Vorländer's edition, takes up Saint-Just where one shouldp. 25, completely mistranslated by Barni, p. 159. That happiness has become a factor in [[politics]785] </ref> quite classically defines it, it is clear that it is an improper propositionrefused to whomever does not renounce the path of desire. It has always been one and will bring back This renunciation can be willed, but at the scepter an&price of the censer truth of man, which get along with it very wellis made clear enough by the reprobation incurred before the common ideal by the Epicureans, and even by the Stoics. Their ataraxia destitutes their wisdom. It They are given no credit for lowering desire, for not only is the freedom Law not held to desire which be raised accordingly; but it is a new factorthus, whether one knows it or not because it inspires a revolution -, that it is always for a desire that one stfuggles and that one dies-but because this revolution wills that its [[struggle]] felt to be for the freedom of desirethrown down.

The result Sade, ex-noble, takes up Saint- Just where one should. That happiness has become a factor in politics is that an improper proposition. It has always been one and will bring back the scepter and the censer which get along with it also wills that very well. It is the law be freefreedom to desire which is a new factor, so free that not because it inspires a revolution --it must be is always for a widow, the Widow par excellence, the desire that one struggles and that one who sends your head into the basket however little it faltered in the affair. Had Saintdies--Just's head remained inhabited by but because this revolution wills that its struggle be for the [[fantasies]] of Organt, he would perhaps have made freedom of Thermidor his triumphdesire.

The right to ‘’jouissance’’result is that it also wills that the law be free, were so free that it recognizedmust be a widow, the Widow par excellence, would relegate the domination of one who sends your head into the basket however little it faltered in the pleasure principle to a forevermore outdated eraaffair. In enunciating it, Sade causes Had Saint-Just's head remained inhabited by the ancient axis fantasies of ethics to [[slip]]Organt, by an imperceptible fracture, for everyone: this axis is nothing other than the egoism he would perhaps have made of happinessThermidor his triumph.

The right to ''jouissance'', were it recognized, would relegate the domination of the pleasure principle to a forevermore outdated era. In enunciating it, Sade causes the ancient axis of ethics to slip, by an imperceptible fracture, for everyone: this axis is nothing other than the egoism of happiness. It cannot be said that all reference to it is extinguiahàd extinguished in Kant, in the very familiarity with which it keeps him company, and even more in its offspring, which one seizes in the requirements from which he dedudes deduces as much a retribution in the beyond as a progress here below.

But it is here that there is something to be judged. To what point does Sade lead us in the experience of this ‘’jouissance’’''jouissance'', or at least its truth?

For these [[human]] pyramids, fabulously demonstrating ‘’jouissance’’ ''jouissance'' in its cascading nature, these tiered fountains of desire built for ‘’jouissance’’ jouissance to cast upon the d'Este gardens the iridescence of a baroque voluptousness, the higher they make it gush into the sky, the closer we are drawn by the question of what is dripping there.

Of the unpredicatable quanta with which the love-[[hate]] atom shimmers near [[The thing|the Thing]] whence man emerges with a cry, what is felt, beyond certain limits, has nothing to do with what supports desire in fantasy, which is precisely constituted by these limits.

These limits, we know that in his life Sade went beyond them.

To limit ourselves to the bedroom, for a sharp enough glimpse of the sentiments of a [[girl]] toward her [[mother]], the fact remains that wickedness, [786] so justly situated by Sade in its transcendence, teaches us nothing very new about the modulations of her heart.

A work which wills itself to be wicked [‘’méchante’’méchante] could not permit itself to be a mediocre [‘’méchante’’[ ''méchante''] work, and it must be said that the ‘’Philosophy’’''Philosophy'', by a whole side of good work, lends itself to this witticism.

Doubtless it is a treatise on the education of girls<ref> Sade expressly indicates it in his [[complete]] title.[787]</ref> and as such submitted to the laws of the genre. Despite the advantage it gains by exposing the [[anal]]-sadistic which clouded over the subject in its [[obsessional]] [[insistence]] in the two preceding centuries, it remains a treatise on education. The sermon is excruciating for the victim, self-infatuated on the part of the instructor.

centuries, it remains a treatise on education. The sermon is excruciating for the victim, self-infatuated on the part of the instructor. The historical, or rather, erudite information is grey and makes one regret a La Mothe le Vayer. The [[physiology]] is composed of old wives' tales. As far as the sexual education is concerned, it sounds like a contemporary medical pamphlet; no more need be said.

This [[trait]] could have been priceless, one of the laudable effëets effects of sadistic impotence. That Sade missed it means that something remains to be thought.

His failing is confirmed by another no less remarkable: the work never presents us with the success of a [[seduction]] in which the fantasy would nevertheless be crowned: that by which the victim, be it in her final spasm, would come to consent to the intention of her tormentor, or would even enroll herself on his side by the verve of her consent.

This demonstrates from another point of view that desire is the other side of the law. In the Sadian fantasy, one sees how they sustain each other. For Sade, one is algays always on the same side, either the good or the bad; no affront can [[change]] anything. It is thus the triumph of virtue: this paradox only recovers the derision proper to the edifying book, which Justine aims at too much not to espouse it.

Apart from the lengthening nose which gives away the lie, found at the end of the posthumous ‘’Dialogue ''Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man’’ Man'' (admit that here is an unpropitious subject for other graces than divine grace), one sometimes feels the lack in the work of ''a ‘’mot mot d'esprit’’esprit'', and more largely of the wit whose [[necessity]] Pope had spoken of almost a century before.

Evidently, all this ig is forgotten by the invasion of pedantry which weighs upon French [[literature]] singe ‘’WWII’’since ''WWII''.

But if you need a strong stomach to follow Sade when he extols calumny, the first article of [[morality]] to be instituted in his Republic, one might prefer that he put something of the spiciness of a Renan into it. "Let us congratulate ourselves in like manner," the latter writes, "that [[Jesus]] encountered no law which punished the invectives uttered against one [[class]] of citizens. Had such a law existed, the Pharisees would have been inviolate.”"<ref> Cf. ''Vie de físusJésus'', 17th edition, p. 339.</ref> And he continues: "His exquisite irony, his arch and provoking remarks, always struck home. The Nessus-shirt of ridicule which the Jew , son of the Pharisees, has dragged in tatters after him during eighteen centuries, was woven by Jesus with a divine skill. Masterpieces of fine raillery, their features are written in lines of fire upon the flesh of the hypocrite and the false devotee. Incomparable traits, worthy of a son of God. A god alone knows how to kill after this fashion. [[Socrates]] and Molière only touched the skin. He carried fire and rigegg the marrow.”<ref> Ibid., p. 346.</ref>

For these remarks take Masterpieces of fine raillery, their value from thgeg-known result, we mean the vocation features are written in lines of fire upon the Apostle to the rank flesh of the Phariggs hypocrite and the triumph, universalfalse devotee. Incomparable traits, worthy of a son of Pharisaic virtuesGod. Which, one will agree, leads A god alone knows how to a more pertinent argument than kill after this fashion. Socrates and Molière only touched the rather paltry excuse with which Sade is content in his apology for calumny: that skin. He carried fire and rage to the honest man will always triumph over itmarrow." <ref> ''Ibid''., p. 346.[788]</ref>

This platitude does not prevent a somber beauty For these remarks take their value from emanating from this monument the well-known result, we mean the vocation of defiance. This beauty bears witness for us io the experience for which we [[search]] behind Apostle to the fabulation rank of the fantasyPharisees and the triumph, universal, of Pharisaic virtues. A tragicþperienceWhich, one will agree, leads to a more pertinent argument than the rather paltry excuse with which Sade is content in his apology for calumny: that the honest man will always triumph over it projects its condition in a lighting beyond all [[fear]] and pity.

Bewilderment and shadows, such is, contrary This platitude does not prevent a somber beauty from emanating from this monument of defiance. This beauty bears witness for us to the [[joke]] ‘’mot d'esprit’’<ref> One knows how Freud takes off from experience for which we search behind the "bewilderment and illumination" fabulation of Heymansthe fantasy.</ref> the conjunction whose carbon brillance fascinates us A tragic experience, for it projects its condition in these scenesa lighting beyond all fear and pity.

Bewilderment and shadows, such is ,contrary to the joke [''mot d'esprit''],<ref>One knows how Freud takes off from the "bewilderment and illumination" of Heymans.</ref> the conjunction whose carbon brillance fascinates us in these scenes. This [[tragic]] is of the type which will sharpen its image later in [[The Century|the century]] in more than one work, [[erotic]] novel or religious drama. We would call it the senile Sictragic, of which it was not known before us, except in schoolboys' jokes, that it was within a stone's-throw of the noble tragic. One should refer, to understand us , to [[Claudel]]'s trilogy of the ‘’Père humilié’’''Père humilié''. (To understand us, one should also know thèt that we have shown in this work the traits of the most authentic tragedy. It is Melpomene who is age-ridden, with Clio, without anyone seeing which one will bury the other.) Thus we are in a position to interrogate the ''Sade, mon prochain'' whose invocation we owe to the perspicacity of Pierre Klossowski. Extreme, it dispenses him from having to play the wit [''des recours du bel esprit''].<ref>This phrase was addressed to a future academician, himself an expert in maliciousness, whom I have perceived to recognize himself in the one which opens this article. [789]</ref>

That the Sadian fangsy fantasy situates itself better in the bearers of Christian ethics than elsewhere igglkt is what our [[structural]] landmarks allow us to grasp easily.

But that Sade, himself, refuses to be my [[neighbor]], is what needs to be [[recalled]], not in order to refuse it to him in return, but in order to recognize the [[meaning]] of this [[refusal]].

We believe that Sade is not close enough to his own wickedness to recognize his neighbor in it. A trait which he phares shares with many, and notably with Freud. For such is indeed the sole motive of the recoil of beings, sometimes forewarned, before the Christian commandment.

For Sade, we see the test of this , crucial in our eyes, in his refusal of the death penalty, which history, if not logic, would suffice to show is one of the corollaries of Charity.

Sade thus stopped, at the point where dèsire desire is knotted together with the law.  If something in him held to the law, in order there to find the opportunity Saint [[Paul]] speaks of, to be sinful beyond measure, who would throw the first stone? But he went no further.

Listen to him bragging of his technique, of immediately putting everything which occurs to him into operation, [[thinking]] moreover, by replacing repentance with reiteration, to have done with the law within. He finds nothing better to encourage us to follow him than the promise that nature, [[woman]] that she is, will magically always yield to us more.

It sufficiently indicates, in any case, that it would not be possible for Sade, as is suggested by P. Klossowski even as he [[notes]] that he does not believe it, to have attained the sort of apathy which would be “to "to have reentered the bosom of nature, in a waking state, in our world,”"<ref>Cf. the footnote on p. 94, ‘’Sade''Sade, mon prochain''.’’[790]</ref>> inhabited by language.

Of phat what Sade is lacking here, we have [[forbidden]] ourselves to say a word. One magsense may sense it in the gradation of the ‘’Philosopy’’ ''Philosopy'' toward the fact that it is the curved needle, dear to Buñuel's heroes, which is finally called upon to resolve a girl's ''penisneid'', and quite a big one.

Be that as it may, it appears that there is nothing to be gained by replacing Diotima with DolmancéDolmance, someone whom the ordinary path seems to frighten more than is fitting, and who--did Sade see it?-closes - closes the affair with a ‘’Noli ''Noli tangere matrem’’matrem''. V . . . ed and sewn up, the mother remains forbidden. Our verdict upon the sybmission submission of Sade to the Law is confirmed.

Of a treatise truÏy truly about desire, there is thus little here, even nothing.

        R. G. September 1962 The editors would like to thank Jacques-[[Alain]] [[Miller]] for the permission to publishthis text. This text should have served as a preface to “Philosophy in the Bedroom”. It appeared in the journal Critique (no. 191, April 1963) as a review of theedition of the works of Sade for which it was destined. <ref>For which it was destined on commission. I add here, because it's droll, that they put themselves in the position of having to re-commission it from me when the success of [[Ecrits]] rendered it plausible ( . . . to the person who replaced me?)</ref>

<references/>