Changes

* [[Lacan, Jacques]]. [[Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever]]. Talk at John Hopkins University, Baltimore. 1966. <http://www.lacan.com/hotel.htm>

(Lacan Talk at John Hopkins UniversitySomebody spent some time this afternoon trying to convince me that it would surely not be a [[pleasure]] for an English-speaking audience to listen to my bad accent and that for me to speak in [[English]] would constitute a risk for what one might call the transmission of my [[message]]. Truly, for me it is a great case of [[conscience]], because to do otherwise would be absolutely contrary to my own concept of the [[message]]: of the [[message]] as I will explain it to you, of the [[linguistic]] [[message]]. Many people talk nowadays about messages everywhere, inside the organism a hormone is a message, a beam of light to obtain teleguidance to a plane or from a satellite is a message, and so on; but the [[message]] in [[language]] is absolutely different. The message, our message, in all cases comes from the [[Other]] by which I understand "from the place of the Other." It certainly is not the common [[little other|other]], the [[little other| other]] with a lower-case <i>o</i>, and this is why I have given a capital <i>O</i> as the initial letter to the [[Other]] of whom I am now speaking. Since in this case, here in Baltimore, 1966) it would seam that the [[Other]] is naturally [[English]]-speaking, it would really be doing myself [[violence]] to speak [[French]]. But the question that this person raised, that it would perhaps be difficult and even a little ridiculous for me to speak [[English]], is an important argument and I also know that there are many French-speaking people present that do not understand English at all; for these my choice of English would be a security, but perhaps I would not wish them to be so secure and in this case I shall speak a little French as well.

Somebody spent First, let me put forth some time this afternoon trying to convince me advice about [[structure]], which is the subject matter of our meeting. It may happen that it would surely not there will be a pleasure for an English-speaking audience to listen to my bad accent mistakes, confusion, more and more approximative uses of this notion, and I think that for me to speak in English would constitute a risk for what one might call the transmission soon there will be some sort of my messagefad about this word. Truly, for For me it is a great case of conscience, different because to do otherwise would be absolutely contrary to my own concept of I have used this term for a very long time; since the message: beginning of the message as I will explain it to you, of the linguistic messagemy teaching. Many people talk nowadays The reason why something about messages everywhere, inside the organism a hormone my position is not better known is that I addressed myself only to a messagevery special audience, a beam namely one of light to obtain teleguidance to a plane or from a satellite is a message[[psychoanalysts]]. Here there are some very peculiar difficulties, and so on; but the message in language because [[psychoanalysts]] really know something: of what I was talking to them about and that this thing is absolutely differenta particularly difficult thing to cope with for anybody who practices [[psychoanalysis]]. The message. our message, in all cases comes from subject is not a simple thing for the Other by which I understand &quot;from [[psychoanalysts]] who have something to do with the place of the Othersubject proper.&quot; It certainly is not the common other In this case I wish to avoid misunderstandings, the other with a lower-case <i>o[[méconnaissance]]s</i>, and this of my position.  <i>[[Méconnaissance]]</i> is why a French word which I have given a capital am obliged to use because there is no equivalent in [[English]]. <i>O[[Méconnaissance]]</i> as precisely implies the initial letter to the Other of whom I am now speaking. Since [[subject]] in this case, here in Baltimore, its [[meaning]]; and I was also advised that it would seam that is not so easy to talk about the Other is naturally "[[subject]]" before an [[English]]-speaking, it would really be doing myself violence to speak Frenchaudience. But the question that this person raised, that it would perhaps be difficult and even a little ridiculous for me <i>[[Méconnaissance]]</i> is not to speak English, <i>méconnaitre</i> my [[subjectivity]]. What exactly is in question is an important argument and the status of the problem of the [[structure]].  When I also know that there are many French-speaking people present that do not understand English at all; for these began to teach something about [[Psychoanalysis]] I lost some of my choice of English would be a securityaudience, but perhaps because I would not wish them to had perceived long before then the simple fact that if you open a book of [[Freud]], and particularly those books which are properly about the [[unconscious]], you can be so secure and in this case I shall speak absolutely sure -- it is not a little French as well. </p><p style="textprobability but a certitude -align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />First, let me put forth some advice about structure, which to fall on a page where it is the subject matter not only a question of our meeting. It may happen that [[word]]s -- naturally in a book there will be mistakes, confusion, more and more approximative uses of this notion. and I think that soon there will be some sort are always words many printed words -- but [[word]]s which are the [[object]] through which one seeks for a way to handle the [[unconscious]]. Not even the meaning of fad about this the [[word]]s, but [[word]]s in their flesh, in their [[material]] aspect. For me it is different because I have used this term for a very long time&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; since A great part of the beginning speculations of my teaching. The reason why something [[Freud]] is about my position is not better known is that I addressed myself only to a very special audience[[pun]]ning in a [[dream]] or [[lapsus]], or what in French we call <i>calembour, namely one of psychoanalysts. Here there are some very peculiar difficultieshomonymie</i>, because psychoanalysts really know something: or still the division of what I was talking to them about and that this thing is a particularly difficult thing to cope word into many parts with for anybody who practices psychoanalysiseach part taking on a new meaning after it is broken down. The subject It is not a simple thing for curious to note, even if in this case it is not absolutely proven, that words are the psychoanalysts who have something to do with only [[material]] of the subject proper[[unconscious]]. In this It is not proven but it is probable (and in any case I wish to avoid misunderstandingshave never said that the [[unconscious]] was an assemblage of [[word]]s, <i>méconnaissances</i>, of my positionbut that the [[unconscious]] is precisely [[structure]]d). <i>Méconnaissance</i> is a French word which I am obliged to use because don't think there is no equivalent in such an [[English. <i>Méconnaissance</i> precisely implies the subject in its meaning&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and I was also advised that ]] word but it is not so easy necessary to talk have this term, as we are talking about [[structure]] and the &quot;subject&quot; before an English-speaking audience[[unconscious is structured as a language]]. <i>Méconnaissance</i> is not to <i>méconnaitre</i> my subjectivity. What exactly What does that mean?   Properly speaking this is in question is the status of the problem of the structure. </p><p style=a redundancy because "text-align: justify; line-height: 150%[[structured]]"><spacer size=and "20as a [[language]]" type="horizontal" />When I began to teach something about Psychoanalysis I lost some of for me mean exactly the same thing. [[Structure]]d means my [[speech]], my audience[[:category:terms|lexicon]], etc., because I had perceived long before then the simple fact which is exactly the same as a [[language]]. And that is not all. Which [[language]]? Rather than myself it was my pupils that if you open took a book great deal of Freudtrouble to give that question a different [[meaning]], and particularly those books which to search for the formula of a reduced [[language]]. What are properly about the unconsciousminimum conditions, they ask themselves, you can be absolutely sure&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;it is not necessary to constitute a probability but a certitude&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;to fall on [[language]]? Perhaps only four <i>signantes</i>, four [[signify]]ing elements are enough. It is a page where it curious exercise which is not only based on a question of words&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;naturally complete error, as I hope to show you on the board in a book there are always words moment. There were also some [[philosophers]], not many printed words&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;really but words which are the object through which one seeks for a way to handle the unconscious. Not even the meaning some, of the words, but words those present at my [[seminar]] in their flesh, in their material aspect. A great part Paris who have found since then that it was not a question of the speculations an &quot;under&quot; [[language]] or of Freud is about punning in a dream &quot;another&quot; [[language]], not [[myth]] for instance or lapsus[[phoneme]]s, or what in French we call <i>calembour, homonymie</i>, or still the division of a word into many parts with each part taking on a new meaning after it is broken downbut [[language]]. It is curious extraordinary the pains that all took to note, even if in this case it is not absolutely proven, that words are the only material change the place of the unconsciousquestion. It is [[Myth]]s, for instance, do not proven but it is probable (and take place in any case our consideration precisely because those are also [[structure]]d as a [[language]], and when I have never said that the unconscious was an assemblage say &quot;as a [[language]]&quot; it is not as some special sort of words[[language]], for example, but that the unconscious is precisely structured)[[mathematical]] [[language]], [[semiotical]] [[language]], or [[cinematographical]] [[language]]. I don't think there [[Language]] is such an English word but it is necessary to have this term, as we are talking about structure [[language]] and the unconscious there is structured as a only one sort of [[languag]]e: [[concrete]] [[language. What does that mean? </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />Properly speaking this is a redundancy because ]]&quotnbsp;structured&quot#8212; and &quotnbsp; [[English]] or [[French]] for instance&nbsp;&#8212;as a language&quotnbsp; for me mean exactly the same that people talk. The first thingto start in this context is that there is no [[meta-language]]. Structured means my speech, my lexicon, etc., which For it is exactly the same as a language. And necessary that is not allso called [[meta-language]]s be presented to you with [[language]]. Which language? Rather than myself it was my pupils that took You cannot teach a great deal of trouble to give that question a different meaning, and to search for course in [[mathematic]]s using only [[letter]]s on the formula of a reduced languageboard. What are the minimum conditions, they ask themselves, It is always necessary to constitute a speak an ordinary [[language? Perhaps ]] that is understood.  It is not only four because the [[material]] of the [[unconscious]] is a [[linguistic]] [[material]], or as we say in [[French]] <i>signantes[[langagier]]</i>, four signifying elements are enoughthat the [[unconscious]] is [[structure]]d as a [[language]]. It The question that the [[unconscious]] raises for you is a curious exercise which problem that touches the most sensitive point of the nature of [[language]] that is based on a complete error, as I hope to show you on the board question of the [[subject]]. The [[subject]] cannot simply be identified with the [[speaker]] or the personal pronoun in a momentsentence. There were also some philosophersIn [[French]] the <i>[[ennoncé]]</i> is exactly the sentence, not but there are many really but some, <i>[[ennoncé]]s</i> where there is no [[index]] of those present at my seminar in Paris who have found since then that it was not a question of an him who utters the <i>ennoncé</i>. When I say &quot;underit rains,&quot; language or the [[subject]] of the [[enunciation]] is not part of the [[sentence]]. In any case here there is some sort of difficulty. The [[subject]] cannot always be identified with what the [[linguist]]s call &quot;another&quot; language, not myth for instance or phonemes, but languagethe [[shifter]]. It is extraordinary &quot;  The question that the pains that all took to change the place nature of the question. Myths, for instance, do not take place [[unconscious]] puts before us is in our consideration precisely because those are also structured as a languagefew words, and when I say &quot;as a language&quot; it that something always [[think]]s. [[Freud]] told us that the [[unconscious]] is not as some special sort of language, for example, mathematical language, semiotical languageabove all [[thought]]s, or cinematographical language. Language is language and there that which [[think]]s is only [[bar]]red from [[consciousness]]. This [[bar]] has many applications, many possibilities with regard to meaning. The main one sort of language: concrete language&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; English or French for instance&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;that people talk. The first thing to start in this context is that there is no meta-language. For is that it is really a [[bar]]rier, a [[bar]]rier which it is necessary that all so called meta-languages be presented to you with languagejump over or to pass through. You cannot teach a course in mathematics using only letters on the board. It This is always necessary to speak an ordinary language that important because if I don't emphasize this [[bar]]rier all is understoodwell for you. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />It is not only because the material of the unconscious is a linguistic material, or as we As we say in [[French <i>langagier</i> that ]], ''ça vous arrange'', because if something thinks in the unconscious floor below or underground things are simple; [[thought]] is always there and all one needs is structured as a language. The question little [[consciousness]] on the [[thought]] that the unconscious raises for you living being is a problem that touches the most sensitive point of the nature of language that naturally thinking and all is well. If such were the question of the subject. The subject cannot simply case, [[thought]] would be identified with the speaker or the personal pronoun in prepared by [[life]], [[naturally]], such as [[instinct]] for instance. If [[thought]] is a sentence. In French [[natural]] process, then the <i>ennoncé</i> [[unconscious]] is exactly without difficulty. But the sentence, but there are many <i>ennoncés</i> where there is no index [[unconscious]] has nothing to do with [[instinct]] or primitive [[knowledge]] or preparation of him who utters the <i>ennoncé</i>[[thought]] in some underground. When I say &quot;it rainsIt is a [[thinking]] with [[word]]s,&quot; the subject with [[thought]]s that escape your vigilance, your state of watchfulness. The question of the enunciation vigilance is not part of the sentenceimportant. In any case here there It is some sort of difficulty. The subject cannot always be identified as if a demon plays a game with what the linguists call &quot;the shifteryour watchfulness.&quot; </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" /> The question that the nature of the unconscious puts before us is in to find a few words, that something always thinks. Freud told us that precise status for this [[other]] [[subject]] which is exactly the unconscious is above all thoughts, and sort of [[subject]] that which thinks is barred from consciousnesswe can determine taking our point of departure in [[language]]. This bar has many applications When I prepared this little talk for you, many possibilities with regard to meaningit was early in the morning. The main one is that I could see Baltimore through the window and it is really was a barrier, very interesting moment because it was not quite daylight and a barrier which it is necessary neon sign indicated to jump over or me every minute the change of time, and naturally there was heavy traffic and I remarked to pass through. This is important because if myself that exactly all that I don't emphasize this barrier all is well could see, except for you. As we say some trees in Frenchthe distance, ça vous arrangewas the result of [[thought]]s actively [[thinking]] [[thought]]s, because if something thinks in where the floor below or underground things are simple; thought is always there and all one needs is a little consciousness on function played by the thought that the living being is naturally thinking and all is wellsubjects was not completely obvious. If such were In any case the case, thought would be prepared by life, naturally, such so-called <i>[[Dasein]]</i> as instinct for instance. If thought is a natural processdefinition of the [[subject]], then the unconscious is without difficultywas there in this rather intermittent or fading [[spectator]]. But The best [[image]] to sum up the [[unconscious has nothing to do with instinct or primitive knowledge or preparation of thought ]] is Baltimore in some undergroundthe early morning.  Where is the [[subject]]? It is necessary to find the [[subject]] as a thinking with words, with thoughts that escape your vigilance, your state of watchfulness. The question of vigilance is important. It is as if a demon plays a game with your watchfulness. The question is to find a precise status for [[lost object]]. More precisely this other subject which [[lost object]] is exactly the sort support of the [[subject that we can determine taking our point of departure ]] and in language. </p><p style="text-align: justifymany cases is a more abject thing than you may care to consider&nbsp;&#8212; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />When I prepared this little talk for you&nbsp;in some cases it is something done, it was early in the morning. I could see Baltimore through the window and it was a very interesting moment because it was not quite daylight as all [[psychoanalyst]]s and many people who have been psychoanalyzed know perfectly well. That is why many [[psychoanalyst]]s prefer to return to a neon sign indicated to me every minute general [[psychology]], as the change President of time, and naturally there was heavy traffic and I remarked the New York Psychoanalytical Society tells us we ought to myself that exactly all that do. But I could seecannot change things, except for some trees in the distanceI am a [[psychoanalyst]] and if someone prefers to address himself to a professor of [[psychology]] that is his affair. The question of the [[structure]], was the result since we are talking of thoughts actively thinking thoughts[[psychology]], where the function played by the subjects was is not completely obviousa term that only I use. In any case the so-called <i>Dasein</i> as a definition For a long time thinkers, searchers, and even inventors who were concerned with the question of the subject[[mind]], was there in this rather intermittent or fading spectator. The best image to sum up have over the unconscious years put forward the idea of [[unity]] as the most important and characteristic trait of [[structure]]. Conceived as something which is Baltimore already in the early morning[[reality]] of the organism it is obvious. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />Where is the subject? It is necessary to find the subject The organism when it is mature is a unit and functions as a lost objectunit. More precisely The question becomes more difficult when this lost object idea of [[unity]] is applied to the support function of the subject and in many cases [[mind]], because the [[mind]] is not a more abject thing than you may care to consider&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;totality in some cases it is something doneitself, as all psychoanalysts and many people who have been psychoanalyzed but these ideas in the form of the intentional [[unity]] were the basis; as you know perfectly well. That is why many psychoanalysts prefer to return to a general psychology, as the President of all of the New York Psychoanalytical Society tells us we ought to doso-called [[phenomenological]] movement. But I cannot change things, I am a psychoanalyst The same was also true in [[physics]] and if someone prefers to address himself to a professor of [[psychology that is his affair. The question of ]] with the structure, since we are talking so-called [[Gestalt]] school and the [[notion]] of psychology<i>bonne forme</i> whose function was to join, for instance, is not a term that only I use. For a long time thinkers, searchers, drop of water and more complicated ideas, and great [[psychologist]]s, and even inventors who were concerned with the question [[psychoanalyst]]s are full of the mind, have over the years put forward the idea of unity as &quot;total personality.&quot; At any rate, it is always the most important and characteristic trait of structure. Conceived as something [[unifying]] [[unity]] which is already in the reality of the organism it is obviousforeground. The organism when it is mature is I have never understood this, for if I am a [[psychoanalyst]] I am also a unit man, and functions as a unit. The question becomes more difficult when this idea of unity is applied to man my experience has shown me that the function principal characteristic of the mindmy own [[human]] [[life]] and, I am sure, because that of the mind is not a totality in itself, but these ideas in the form of the intentional unity were the basispeople who are here&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; as you know, and if anybody is not of all of the so-called phenomenological movement. this opinion I hope that he will raise his hand&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;is that [[life]] is something which goes, as we say in [[French]],</pi>á la dérive<p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"/i><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />The same was also true in physics and psychology with . [[Life]] goes down the so-called Gestalt school river, from time to time touching a bank; staying for a while here and the notion of <i>bonne forme</i> whose function was to jointhere, for instance, a drop of water and more complicated ideas, and great psychologists, and even the psychoanalysts are full of the idea of without understanding anything&quotnbsp;total personality.&quot#8212; At any rate, &nbsp;and it is always the principle of [[analysis]] that nobody understands anything of what happens. The idea of the [[unifying ]] [[unity which is in ]] of the [[human]] condition has always had on me the foregroundeffect of a scandalous [[lie]]. I have never understood this We may try to introduce another principle to [[understand]] these things. If we rarely try to [[understand]] things from the point of view of the [[unconscious]], it is because the [[unconscious]] tells us something articulated in [[word]]s and perhaps we could try to search for if I am a psychoanalyst their principle.  I am also suggest you consider the [[unity]] in another light. Not a man<i>unifying</i> [[unity]] but the countable unity one, two, and as a man three. After fifteen years I have taught my experience has shown pupils to count at most up to five which is difficult (four is easier) and they have [[understood]] that much. But for tonight permit me that to stay at two. Of course what we are dealing with here is the principal characteristic question of my own human life the integer, and, I am sure, that the question of the people who are here&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and if anybody integers is not of this opinion a simple one as I hope that he will raise his hand&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;think many people here know. To count, of course, is that life not difficult. It is something which goesonly necessary to have, as we say in Frenchfor instance,<i> á la dérive</i>a certain number of sets and a one to-one correspondence. Life goes down the river, from time to time touching a bank; staying It is true for a while here and example that there. without understanding anything&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and are exactly as many people sitting in this room as there are seats. But it is the principle of analysis that nobody understands anything necessary to have a collection composed of integers to constitute an integer, or what happensis called a natural number. The idea It is, of course, in part natural but only in the unifying unity of sense that we do not understand why it exists. Counting is not an empirical fact and it is impossible to deduce the human condition has always had on me act of counting from empirical data alone. [[Hume]] tried but Frege demonstrated perfectly the effect ineptitude of the attempt. The real difficulty lies in the fact that every integer is in itself a scandalous lieunit. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />We may try to introduce another principle to understand these If I take two as a unit, things. If we rarely try to understand things from the point of view of the unconsciousare very enjoyable, it is because the unconscious tells us something articulated in words [[men]] and perhaps we could try to search [[women]] for their principle. </p><p style="text-align: justifyinstance&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />I suggest you consider the unity in another light. Not [[love]] plus [[unity]]! But after a <i>unifying</i> unity but the countable unity onewhile it is finished, after these twothere is nobody, three. After fifteen years I have taught my pupils perhaps a [[child]], but that is another level and to count at most up to five which generate three is difficult (four is easier) and they have understood that muchanother affair. But for tonight permit me to stay at two. Of course what we are dealing with here is When you try to read the question theories of [[mathematicians]] regarding numbers you find the integer, and formula &quot;n plus 1 (n + 1)&quot; as the question basis of integers is not a simple one as I think many people here know. To count, of course, is not difficultall the theories. It is only necessary to have, for instance, a certain number this question of sets and a the &quot;one to-one correspondence. It is true for example more&quot; that there are exactly as many people sitting in this room as there are seats. But it is necessary the key to have a collection composed the genesis of numbers and instead of integers to this [[unifying]] [[unity]] that constitutes two in the first case I propose that you consider the real numerical genesis of two.  It is necessary that this two constitute an the first integer, or what which is called not yet born as a natural numberbefore the two appears. It is, of course, in part natural but only in You have made this possible because the sense that we do not understand why it exists. Counting two is not an empirical fact and it is impossible here to grant existence to deduce the act of counting from empirical data alone. Hume tried but Frege demonstrated perfectly first one: put <i>two</i> in the ineptitude place of <i>one</i> and consequently in the attempt. The real difficulty lies in place of the fact that every integer is in itself a unit<i>two</i> you see <i>three</i> appear. If What we have here is something which I take two as a unit, things are very enjoyable, men and women for instance&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;love plus unity! But after a while it can call the <i>mark</i>. You already have something which is finished, after these two there marked or something which is nobody, perhaps a child, but not marked. It is with the first mark that is another level and to generate three is another affair. When you try to read we have the theories status of mathematicians regarding numbers you find the formula &quot;n plus 1 (n + 1)&quot; as thing. It is exactly in this fashion that Frege explains the basis genesis of all the theories. It number; the class which is characterized by no elements is this question of the &quotfirst class;you have one more&quot; that at the place of zero and afterward it is the key easy to understand how the genesis place of numbers one becomes the second place which makes place for two, three, and instead so on. The question of this unifying unity that constitutes the two in is for us the first case I propose that you consider question of the real numerical genesis subject. and here we reach a fact of psychoanalytical experience in as much as the two does not complete the one to make two, but must repeat the one to permit the one to exist. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />It This first repetition is the only one necessary that this two constitute to explain the genesis of the first integer which number, and only one repetition is not yet born as a number before necessary to constitute the status of the two appearssubject. You have made this possible because the two The unconscious subject is here something that tends to grant existence repeat itself, but only one such repetition is necessary to constitute it. However, let us look more precisely at what is necessary for the second to repeat the first one: put <i>two</i> in the place of <i>one</i> and consequently first in the place of the <i>two</i> you see <i>three</i> appear. What we order that we may have here is something which I can call the <i>mark</i>a repetition. You already have something which is marked or something which is not markedThis question cannot be answered too quickly. It If you answer too quickly, you will answer that it is with necessary that they are the first mark that we have same. In this case the status principle of the thing. It is exactly in this fashion two should be that Frege explains the genesis of the numbertwins&nbsp;&#8212; the class which is characterized by no elements is the first class&nbsp; you have one at the place of zero and afterward it is easy why not triplets or quintuplets? In my day we used to understand how the place of one becomes the second place which makes place teach children that they must not add, for twoinstance, threemicrophones with dictionaries; but this is absolutely absurd, and so onbecause we would not have addition if we were not able to add microphones with dictionaries or as [[Lewis Carroll]] says, cabbages with kings. The question of the two sameness is for us not in things but in the question of the subject. and here we reach a fact of psychoanalytical experience in as much <i>mark</i> which makes it possible to add things with no consideration as to their differences. The mark has the two does not complete effect of rubbing out the one to make twodifference, but must repeat the one and this is the key to permit the one to exist. This first repetition is the only one necessary what happens to explain the genesis of the numbersubject, and only one repetition is necessary to constitute the status of the subject. The unconscious subject is something in the repetition; because you know that tends to repeat itselfthis subject repeats something peculiarly significant, but only one such repetition the subject is necessary to constitute it. Howeverhere, let us look more precisely at what is necessary for the second to repeat the first instance, in order this obscure thing that we may have a repetition. This question cannot be answered too quicklycall in some cases trauma, or exquisite pleasure. What happens? If you answer too quickly, you will answer that it is necessary that they are the same. In &quot;thing&quot; exists in this symbolic structure, if this case unitary trait is decisive, the principle trait of the two should be sameness is here. In order that of twinsthe &nbspquot;thing&#8212quot;&nbsp;and why not triplets or quintuplets? In my day we used to teach children that they must not addwhich is sought be here in you, for instance, microphones with dictionaries; but this it is absolutely absurd, necessary that the first trait be rubbed out because we would not have addition if we were not able to add microphones with dictionaries or as Lewis Carroll says, cabbages with kingsthe trait itself is a modification. The sameness It is not in things but the taking away of all difference, and in this case, without the trait, the <i>mark</i> which makes it possible to add things with no consideration as to their differencesfirst &quot;thing:&quot; is simply lost. The mark has the effect of rubbing out the difference, and this is the key to what happens to the subject, the unconscious subject this insistence in the repetition; because you know is that this subject repeats something peculiarly significantin its essence repetition as repetition of the symbolical sameness is impossible. In any case, the subject is here, for instance, in the effect of this obscure thing that we call repetition in some cases trauma, or exquisite pleasure. What happens? If as much as it necessitates the &quot;thingfading,&quot; exists in this symbolic structure, if this unitary trait is decisivethe obliteration, of the trait first foundation of the sameness subject, which is why the subject, by status, is herealways presented as a divided essence. In order that The trait, I insist, is identical, but it assures the difference only of identity&quotnbsp;&#8212;thing&quotnbsp; which is sought be here in you, it is necessary that not by effect of sameness or difference but by the first trait be rubbed out because the trait itself is a modificationdifference of identity. It This is the taking away of all difference, and easy to understand: as we say in this caseFrench, without the trait<i>je vous numérotte</i>, the first &quotI give you each a number;thing:&quot; is simply lost. The key to and this insistence in repetition is assures the fact that you are numerically different but nothing more than that .  What can we propose to intuition in its essence repetition as repetition of order to show that the symbolical sameness trait be found in something which is impossible. In any case, at the subject is same time one or two? Consider the effect of following diagram which I call an inverted eight, after a well-known figure:  You can see that the line in this repetition in instance may be considered either as much one or as it necessitates the &quot;fading,&quot; two lines. This diagram can be considered the obliteration, basis of the first foundation a sort of essential inscription at the subjectorigin, in the knot which is why constitutes the subject. This goes much further than you might think at first, by status, is always presented as a divided essencebecause you can search for the sort of surface able to receive such inscriptions. The trait You can perhaps see that the sphere, I insistthat old symbol for totality, is identicalunsuitable. A [[torus]], a Klein bottle, but it assures the difference only of identity&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;not by effect of sameness or difference but by the difference of identitya cross-cut surface, are able to receive such a cut. This And this diversity is easy to understand: very important as we say it explains many things about the structure of mental disease. If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in French, <i>je vous numérotte</i>the same way one can show that a cut on a torus corresponds to the neurotic subject, and on a cross-cut surface to another sort of mental disease. I give you each a number; and will not explain this assures the fact that to you are numerically different tonight, but nothing more than thatto end this difficult talk I must make the following precision. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />What can we propose to intuition in order to show that  I have only considered the trait be found in something which beginning of the series of the integers, because it is an intermediary point between language and reality. [[Language]] is at constituted by the same time sort of unitary traits that I have used to explain the one or two? Consider and the following diagram which I call an inverted eightone more. But this trait in language is not identical with the unitary trait, after since in language we have a well-known figure: </p><p align="center" style="line-height: 150%">collection of differential traits. In other words, we can say that language is constituted by a set of signifiers&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;for example,<img src="moebius.gif" width="111" height="75"i>ba, ta, pa</pi><p style="text-align: justify) etc., etc.&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; line-height: 150%">You can see that a set which is finite. Each signifier is able to support the line in this instance may be considered either as one or as two lines. This diagram can be considered same process with regard to the subject, and it is very probable that the basis process of the integers is only a sort special case of essential inscription at the origin, in the knot which constitutes this relation between signifiers. The definition of this collection of signifiers is that they constitute what I call the subjectOther. This goes much further than you might think at first, because you can search for The difference afforded by the sort existence of surface able to receive such inscriptions. You can perhaps see language is that each signifier (contrary to the unitary trait of the sphere, that old symbol for totality, integer number) is unsuitable. A torus, a Klein bottlein most cases, a cross-cut surfacenot identical with itself&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;precisely because we have a collection of signifiers, are able to receive such a cutand in this collection one signifier may or may not designate itself. And this diversity This is well known and is very important as it explains many things about the structure principle of mental diseaseRussell's [[paradox]]. If one can symbolize you take the subject by this fundamental cutset of all elements which are not members of themselves, in the same way one can show [[set]] that you constitute with such elements leads you to a cut on a torus corresponds paradox which, as you know, leads to the neurotic subject, and on a cross-cut surface to another sort of mental diseasecontradiction. I will not explain this to you tonight In simple terms, but to end this difficult talk I must make only means that in a universe of discourse nothing contains everything, and here you find again the gap that constitutes the following precisionsubject. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />I have only considered The [[subject]] is the introduction of a [[loss]] in [[reality]], yet nothing can introduce that, since by status [[reality]] is as full as possible. The notion of a [[loss]] is the beginning of effect afforded by the series instance of the integers, because it trait which is an intermediary point between language and reality. Language is constituted by what, with the same sort intervention of unitary traits that I have used to explain the one and the one more. But this trait in language is not identical with the unitary trait[[letter]] you determine, places&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;say al, since in language we have a collection of differential traits. In other wordsa2, we can say that language is constituted by a set of signifiersa3&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;for example,<i> ba, ta, pa</i>) etcand the places are spaces for a [[lack]]. When the [[subject]] takes the place of the [[lack]], etc.&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; a set which [[loss]] is finite. Each signifier introduced in the [[word]], and this is able to support the same process with regard to definition of the [[subject]]. But to inscribe it, and it is very probable that necessary to define it in a circle, what I call the process [[otherness]], of the integers is only sphere of [[language]]. All that is [[language]] is lent from this [[otherness]] and this is why the [[subject]] is always a special case [[fading]] thing that runs under the [[chain]] of this relation between signifiers[[signifier]]s. The For the definition of this collection of signifiers a [[signifier]] is that they constitute what I call it represents a [[subject]] not for another [[subject]] but for another [[signifier]]. This is the only definition possible of the [[signifier]] as different from the Other[[sign]]. The difference afforded by the existence of language [[sign]] is something that each represents something for somebody, but the [[signifier (contrary to ]] is something that represents a [[subject]] for another [[signifier]]. The consequence is that the [[subject]] [[disappear]]s exactly as in the case of the two [[unitary trait of ]]s, while under the integer number) second [[signifier]] appears what is, called [[meaning]] or [[signification]]; and then in most cases, not identical with itself&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;precisely because we have a collection of signifiers, sequence the other [[signifier]]s appear and in this collection one signifier may or may not designate itselfother [[signification]]s. This is well known and  The question of [[desire]] is that the principle [[fading]] [[subject]] yearns to find itself again by means of some sort of Russell's paradoxencounter with this miraculous thing defined by the [[phantasm]]. If you take the set of all elements which are not members of themselves, </p><p style="text-align: justify In its endeavor it is sustained by that which I call the [[lost object]] that I evoked in the beginning&nbsp;&#8212; line-height: 150%">&nbsp;</p><p align="center" style="line-height: 150%"><img src="xexwhich is such a terrible thing for the imagination.gif" width="150" height="57"></p><p style="text That which is produced and maintained here, and which in my vocabulary I call the [[object]], lower-align: justify; line-height: 150%">the set that you constitute with such elements leads you to case, [[a paradox which]], is well known by all [[psychoanalyst]]s as you know, leads to a contradictionall [[psychoanalysis]] is founded on the [[existence]] of this peculiar [[object]]. In simple terms, But the relation between this [[bar]]red [[subject]] with this only means that in [[object]] (<i>[[a universe of discourse nothing contains everything, and here you find again the gap that constitutes the subject. The subject ]]</i>) is the introduction of a loss [[structure]] which is always found in the [[phantasm]] which supports [[desire]] in reality, yet nothing can introduce that, since by status reality is as full much as possible. The notion of a loss [[desire]] is only that which I have called the effect afforded by [[metonomy]] of all [[signification]].  In this brief presentation I have tried to show you what the instance question of the trait which [[structure]] is whatinside the [[psychoanalytical]] [[reality]]. I have not, however, with said anything about such dimensions as the intervention of [[imaginary]] and the letter you determine[[symbolical]]. It is, places&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;say alof course, a2, a3&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and absolutely essential to understand how the [[symbolic]] [[order]] can enter inside the places are spaces for a lack<i>vécu</i>, lived experienced, of [[mental]] [[life]], but I cannot tonight put forth such an explanation. When the subject takes the place of the lack Consider, a loss is introduced in the wordhowever, and this that which is at the same time the definition of least known and the most certain fact about this [[mythical]] [[subject. But to inscribe it, it ]] which is necessary to define it in a circle, what I call the otherness, sensible phase of the sphere [[living]] [[being]]: this fathomless thing capable of language. All that is language is lent from this otherness experiencing something between [[birth]] and this is why the subject is always a fading thing that runs under the chain [[death]], capable of signifiers. For covering the definition whole spectrum of [[pain]] and [[pleasure]] in a signifier is that it represents a subject not for another subject but for another signifier[[word]], what in [[French]] we call the <i>[[sujet]] de la [[jouissance]]</i>. This is When I came here this evening I saw on the only definition possible of the signifier as different from little neon sign the signmotto &quot;Enjoy Coca-Cola. The sign is something &quot; It reminded me that represents something for somebodyin [[English]], I think, but the signifier there is something that represents a subject for another signifier. The consequence no term to designate precisely this enormous weight of [[meaning]] which is that in the subject disappears exactly as [[French]] [[word]] <i>[[jouissance]]</i>&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; or in the case of the two unitary traits, while under the second signifier appears what is called meaning or signification; and then in sequence the other signifiers appear and other significations. [[Latin]] <i>[[fruor]]</pi>. In the dictionary I looked up <p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"i>[[jouir]]<spacer size="20" type="horizontal" //i>The question of desire and found &quot;to possess, to use&quot; but it is not that at all. If the fading [[living]] [[being]] is something at all thinkable, it will be above all as [[subject yearns to find itself again by means of some sort of encounter with ]] of the <i>[[jouissance]]</i>; but this miraculous thing defined by the phantasm. In its endeavor it is sustained by [[psychological]] [[law]] that which I we call the lost object that I evoked in the beginning&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;[[pleasure principle]] (and which is such a terrible thing for only the imagination. That which [[principle]] of [[displeasure]]) is produced and maintained here, and which in my vocabulary I call the object, lower-case, a, is well known by all psychoanalysts as all psychoanalysis is founded on the existence of this peculiar object. But the relation between this barred subject with this object (<i>a</i>) is the structure which is always found in the phantasm which supports desire in as much as desire is only that which I have called the metonomy of all signification. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />In this brief presentation I have tried to show you what the question of the structure is inside the psychoanalytical reality. I have not, however, said anything about such dimensions as the imaginary and the symbolical. It is, of course, absolutely essential to understand how the symbolic order can enter inside the<i>vécu</i>, lived experienced, of mental life, but I cannot tonight put forth such an explanation. Consider, however, that which is at the same time the least known and the most certain fact about this mythical subject which is the sensible phase of the living being: this fathomless thing capable of experiencing something between birth and death, capable of covering the whole spectrum of pain and pleasure in a word, what in French we call the <i>sujet de la jouissance</i>.When I came here this evening I saw on the little neon sign the motto &quot;Enjoy Coca-Cola.&quot; It reminded me that in English, I think, there is no term to designate precisely this enormous weight of meaning which is in the French word <i>jouissance</i>&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; or in the Latin <i>fruor</i>. In the dictionary I looked up <i>jouir</i> and found &quot;to possess, to use&quot; but it is not that at all. If the living being is something at all thinkable, it will be above all as subject of the <i>jouissance</i>; but this psychological law that we call the pleasure principle (and which is only the principle of displeasure) is very soon to create a barrier to all <ivery soon to create a [[barrier]] to all <i>jouissance</i>. If I am enjoying myself a little too much, I begin to feel [[pain ]] and I moderate my pleasures[[pleasure]]s. The organism seems made to avoid too much <i>[[jouissance]]</i>. Probably we would all be as quiet as oysters if it were not for this curious organization which forces us to disrupt the [[barrier ]] of [[pleasure ]] or perhaps only makes us [[dream ]] of forcing and disrupting this barrier. All that is elaborated by the [[subjective ]] [[construction ]] on the scale of the [[signifier ]] in its relation to the [[Other ]] and which has its root in [[language ]] is only there to permit the full spectrum of [[desire ]] to allow us to approach, to test, this sort of [[forbidden ]] <i>[[jouissance]]</i> which is the only valuable [[meaning ]] that is offered to our [[life]].

[[Category:HelpEdit]]