Changes
no edit summary
==Symbolic==
In his attempt to theorize the category of the [[symbolic]], [[Lacan]] adopts two basis approaches.
# The first approach is to describe it in terms borrowed from [[linguistics]]], using a [[Saussure]]an-inspired model of [[language]] as a system of [[signifiers]].
# The second approach is to describe it in terms borrowed from [[mathematics]].
The two approaches are complementary, since both are attempts to describe formal systems with precise rules, and both demonstrate the power of the [[signifier]].
==Metalanguage==
However, this use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to produce a [[metalanguage]], since "no metalanguage can be spoken."<ref> {{E}} p.311</ref>
<blockquote>"The root of the difficulty is that you can only introduce symolssymbols, mathematical or otherwise, by using everyday language, since you have, after all, to explain what you are going to do with them."<ref>{{S1}} p.2</ref></blockquote>
Thus [[Lacan]]'s use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to escape from the ambiguity of [[language]], but, on the contrary, to produce a way of [[formalization|formalizing]] [[psychoanalysis]] which produces multiple effects of sense without being reducible to a univocal [[signification]]. Also, by using [[mathematics]] [[Lacan]] attempts to prevent all attempts at [[imaginary]] [[knowledge|intuitive understanding]] of [[psychoanalysis]].
