Changes

Jump to: navigation, search
m
Text replace - "é" to "é"
* [[Lacan, Jacques]]. [[Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever (Lacan ]]. Talk at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, . 1966) . <http://www.lacan.com/hotel.htm>
Somebody 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, 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.
Properly speaking this is a redundancy because &quot;"[[structured&quot; ]]" and &quot;"as a [[language&quot; ]]" for me mean exactly the same thing. Structured [[Structure]]d means my [[speech]], my [[:category:terms|lexicon]], etc., which is exactly the same as a [[language]]. And that is not all. Which [[language]]? Rather than myself it was my pupils that took a great deal of trouble to give that question a different [[meaning]], and to search for the formula of a reduced [[language]]. What are the minimum conditions, they ask themselves, necessary to constitute a [[language]]? Perhaps only four <i>signantes</i>, four signifying [[signify]]ing elements are enough. It is a curious exercise which is based on a complete error, as I hope to show you on the board in a moment. There were also some [[philosophers]], not many really but some, of those present at my [[seminar ]] in Paris who have found since then that it was not a question of an &quot;under&quot; [[language ]] or of &quot;another&quot; [[language]], not [[myth ]] for instance or phonemes[[phoneme]]s, but [[language]]. It is extraordinary the pains that all took to change the place of the question. Myths [[Myth]]s, for instance, do not take place in our consideration precisely because those are also structured [[structure]]d as a [[language]], and when I say &quot;as a [[language]]&quot; it is not as some special sort of [[language]], for example, [[mathematical ]] [[language]], [[semiotical ]] [[language]], or [[cinematographical ]] [[language]]. [[Language ]] is [[language ]] and there is only one sort of language[[languag]]e: [[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 it is necessary that all so called [[meta-languages language]]s be presented to you with [[language]]. You cannot teach a course in mathematics [[mathematic]]s using only letters [[letter]]s on the board. It is always necessary to speak an ordinary [[language ]] that is understood.   It is not only because the material of the unconscious is a linguistic material, or as we say in French <i>langagier</i> that the unconscious is structured as a language. The question that the unconscious raises for you is a problem that touches the most sensitive point of the nature of language that is the question of the subject. The subject cannot simply be identified with the speaker or the personal pronoun in a sentence. In French the <i>ennoncé</i> is exactly the sentence, but there are many <i>ennoncés</i> where there is no index of him who utters the <i>ennoncé</i>. When I say &quot;it rains,&quot; 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 linguists call &quot;the shifter.&quot;   The question that the nature of the unconscious puts before us is in a few words, that something always thinks. Freud told us that the unconscious is above all thoughts, and that which thinks is barred from consciousness. This bar has many applications, many possibilities with regard to meaning. The main one is that it is really a barrier, a barrier which it is necessary to jump over or to pass through. This is important because if I don't emphasize this barrier all is well for you. As we say in French, ça vous arrange, because if something thinks in the floor below or underground things are simple; thought is always there and all one needs is a little consciousness on the thought that the living being is naturally thinking and all is well. If such were the case, thought would be prepared by life, naturally, such as instinct for instance. If thought is a natural process, then the unconscious is without difficulty. But the unconscious has nothing to do with instinct or primitive knowledge or preparation of thought in some underground. It is 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 this other subject which is exactly the sort of subject that we can determine taking our point of departure in language.   When I prepared this little talk for you, 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 and a neon sign indicated to me every minute the change of time, and naturally there was heavy traffic and I remarked to myself that exactly all that I could see, except for some trees in the distance, was the result of thoughts actively thinking thoughts, where the function played by the subjects was not completely obvious. In any case the so-called <i>Dasein</i> as a definition of the subject, was there in this rather intermittent or fading spectator. The best image to sum up the unconscious is Baltimore in the early morning.
It is not only because the [[material]] of the [[unconscious]] is a [[linguistic]] [[material]], or as we say in [[French]] <i>[[langagier]]</i> that the [[unconscious]] is [[structure]]d as a [[language]]. The question that the [[unconscious]] raises for you is a problem that touches the most sensitive point of the nature of [[language]] that is the question of the [[subject]]. The [[subject]] cannot simply be identified with the [[speaker]] or the personal pronoun in a sentence. In [[French]] the <i>[[ennoncé]]</i> is exactly the sentence, but there are many <i>[[ennoncé]]s</i> where there is no [[index]] of him who utters the <i>ennoncé</i>. When I say &quot;it rains,&quot; 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;the [[shifter]].&quot;
Where is The question that the nature of the subject? It [[unconscious]] puts before us is necessary to find the subject as in a lost objectfew words, that something always [[think]]s. More precisely this lost object is [[Freud]] told us that the support of the subject and in many cases [[unconscious]] is a more abject thing than you may care to consider&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;in some cases it is something doneabove all [[thought]]s, as all psychoanalysts and many people who have been psychoanalyzed know perfectly wellthat which [[think]]s is [[bar]]red from [[consciousness]]. That is why This [[bar]] has many psychoanalysts prefer to return to a general psychologyapplications, as the President of the New York Psychoanalytical Society tells us we ought many possibilities with regard to domeaning. But I cannot change things The main one is that it is really a [[bar]]rier, I am a psychoanalyst and if someone prefers [[bar]]rier which it is necessary to address himself jump over or to a professor of psychology that is his affairpass through. The question of the structure, since we are talking of psychology, This is not a term that only important because if I usedon't emphasize this [[bar]]rier all is well for you. For a long time thinkers As we say in [[French]], searchers''ça vous arrange'', and even inventors who were concerned with the question of the mind, have over the years put forward the idea of unity as the most important and characteristic trait of structure. Conceived as because if something which is already thinks in the reality of the organism it floor below or underground things are simple; [[thought]] is obvious. The organism when it is mature always there and all one needs is a unit and functions as a unit. The question becomes more difficult when this idea of unity is applied to little [[consciousness]] on the function of [[thought]] that the mind, because the mind living being is naturally thinking and all is not a totality in itself, but these ideas in the form of the intentional unity well. If such were the basis; as you knowcase, [[thought]] would be prepared by [[life]], of all of the so-called phenomenological movement. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />The same was also true in physics and psychology with the so-called Gestalt school and the notion of <i>bonne forme</i> whose function was to join[[naturally]], such as [[instinct]] for instance, . If [[thought]] is a drop of water and more complicated ideas[[natural]] process, and great psychologists, and even then the psychoanalysts are full of [[unconscious]] is without difficulty. But the idea [[unconscious]] has nothing to do with [[instinct]] or primitive [[knowledge]] or preparation of &quot;total personality[[thought]] in some underground.&quot; At any rate, it is always the unifying unity which It is in the foreground. I have never understood this, for if I am a psychoanalyst I am also a man[[thinking]] with [[word]]s, and as a man my experience has shown me with [[thought]]s that the principal characteristic of my own human life and, I am sureescape your vigilance, that your state of the people who are here&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and if anybody is not watchfulness. The question of this opinion I hope that he will raise his hand&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;vigilance is that life important. It is something which goes, as we say in French,<i> á la dérive</i>if a demon plays a game with your watchfulness. Life goes down the river, from time The question is to time touching find a bank; staying precise status for a while here and there. without understanding anything&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and it this [[other]] [[subject]] which is exactly the principle sort of analysis [[subject]] that nobody understands anything of what happens. The idea of the unifying unity of the human condition has always had on me the effect of a scandalous lie. </p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%"><spacer size="20" type="horizontal" />We may try to introduce another principle to understand these things. If we rarely try to understand things from the can determine taking our point of view of the unconscious, it is because the unconscious tells us something articulated departure in words and perhaps we could try to search for their principle[[language]].
When I prepared this little talk for you, 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 and a neon sign indicated to me every minute the change of time, and naturally there was heavy traffic and I remarked to myself that exactly all that I could see, except for some trees in the distance, was the result of [[thought]]s actively [[thinking]] [[thought]]s, where the function played by the subjects was not completely obvious. In any case the so-called <i>[[Dasein]]</i> as a definition of the [[subject]], was there in this rather intermittent or fading [[spectator]]. The best [[image]] to sum up the [[unconscious]] is Baltimore in the early morning.
I suggest Where is the [[subject]]? It is necessary to find the [[subject]] as a [[lost object]]. More precisely this [[lost object]] is the support of the [[subject]] and in many cases is a more abject thing than you may care to consider the unity &nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;in another lightsome cases it is something done, as all [[psychoanalyst]]s and many people who have been psychoanalyzed know perfectly well. Not That is why many [[psychoanalyst]]s prefer to return to a <i>unifying</i> unity but general [[psychology]], as the President of the countable unity oneNew York Psychoanalytical Society tells us we ought to do. But I cannot change things, two, three. After fifteen years I have taught my pupils am a [[psychoanalyst]] and if someone prefers to count at most up address himself to five which a professor of [[psychology]] that is difficult (four is easier) and they have understood that muchhis affair. But for tonight permit me to stay at two. Of course what we are dealing with here is the The question of the integer[[structure]], and the question since we are talking of integers [[psychology]], is not a simple one as term that only I think many people here knowuse. To count For a long time thinkers, searchers, and even inventors who were concerned with the question of coursethe [[mind]], is not difficult. It is only necessary to have, for instance, a certain number over the years put forward the idea of sets [[unity]] as the most important and a one to-one correspondencecharacteristic trait of [[structure]]. It Conceived as something which is true for example that there are exactly as many people sitting already in this room as there are seatsthe [[reality]] of the organism it is obvious. But The organism when it is necessary to have mature is a unit and functions as a collection composed unit. The question becomes more difficult when this idea of integers [[unity]] is applied to constitute an integerthe function of the [[mind]], or what because the [[mind]] is called not a natural number. It istotality in itself, but these ideas in the form of coursethe intentional [[unity]] were the basis; as you know, of all of the so-called [[phenomenological]] movement. The same was also true in part natural but only in [[physics]] and [[psychology]] with the sense that we do not understand why it exists. Counting is not an empirical fact so-called [[Gestalt]] school and it is impossible the [[notion]] of <i>bonne forme</i> whose function was to deduce join, for instance, a drop of water and more complicated ideas, and great [[psychologist]]s, and even the act [[psychoanalyst]]s are full of counting from empirical data alone. Hume tried but Frege demonstrated perfectly the ineptitude idea of the attempt&quot;total personality. The real difficulty lies in &quot; At any rate, it is always the fact that every integer [[unifying]] [[unity]] which is in itself the foreground. I have never understood this, for if I am a unit. If [[psychoanalyst]] I take two am also a man, and as a unitman my experience has shown me that the principal characteristic of my own [[human]] [[life]] and, I am sure, things that of the people who are very enjoyable, men here&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and women for instanceif anybody is not of this opinion I hope that he will raise his hand&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;love plus unity! But after a while it is finished, after these two there that [[life]] is nobodysomething which goes, perhaps a childas we say in [[French]], but that is another level and to generate three is another affair<i> á la dérive</i>. When you try [[Life]] goes down the river, from time to read the theories of mathematicians regarding numbers you find the formula &quottime touching a bank;n plus 1 (n + 1)staying for a while here and there, without understanding anything&quotnbsp; as the basis of all the theories. It is this question of the &quot#8212;one more&quotnbsp; that and it is the key to the genesis principle of [[analysis]] that nobody understands anything of numbers and instead what happens. The idea of this the [[unifying ]] [[unity that constitutes two in ]] of the first case I propose that you consider [[human]] condition has always had on me the real numerical genesis effect of twoa scandalous [[lie]].
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 their principle.
It is necessary that this two constitute I suggest you consider the first integer which is not yet born as [[unity]] in another light. Not a number before the two appears. You have made this possible because the two is here to grant existence to the first one: put <i>twounifying</i> in [[unity]] but the place of <i>countable unity one</i> and consequently in the place of the <i>, two</i> you see <i>, three</i> appear. What we have here is something which After fifteen years I can call the <i>mark</i>. You already have something taught my pupils to count at most up to five which is marked or something which difficult (four is not marked. It is with the first mark easier) and they have [[understood]] that we have the status of the thingmuch. It is exactly in this fashion that Frege explains the genesis of the number; the class which is characterized by no elements is the first class; you have one But for tonight permit me to stay at the place of zero and afterward it two. Of course what we are dealing with here is easy to understand how the place question of one becomes the second place which makes place for two, threeinteger, and so on. The the question of the two integers is for us the question of the subjectnot a simple one as I think many people here know. and here we reach a fact To count, of psychoanalytical experience in as much as the two does course, is not complete the one to make two, but must repeat the one to permit the one to existdifficult. This first repetition It is the only one necessary to explain the genesis have, for instance, a certain number of the number, sets and only a one repetition is necessary to constitute the status of the subject-one correspondence. The unconscious subject It is something true for example that tends to repeat itself, but only one such repetition there are exactly as many people sitting in this room as there are seats. But it is necessary to have a collection composed of integers to constitute it. Howeveran integer, let us look more precisely at or what is necessary for the second to repeat the first in order that we may have called a repetitionnatural number. This question cannot be answered too quickly. If you answer too quickly It is, you will answer that it is necessary that they are the same. In this case the principle of course, in part natural but only in the two should be sense that of twins&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and why not triplets or quintuplets? In my day we used to teach children that they must do not add, for instance, microphones with dictionaries; but this is absolutely absurd, because we would not have addition if we were not able to add microphones with dictionaries or as Lewis Carroll says, cabbages with kingsunderstand why it exists. The sameness Counting is not in things but in the <i>mark</i> which makes an empirical fact and it possible is impossible to add things with no consideration as to their differencesdeduce the act of counting from empirical data alone. The mark has [[Hume]] tried but Frege demonstrated perfectly the effect ineptitude of rubbing out the difference, and this is the key to what happens to the subject, the unconscious subject attempt. The real difficulty lies in the repetition; because you know fact that this subject repeats something peculiarly significantevery integer is in itself a unit. If I take two as a unit, the subject is herethings are very enjoyable, [[men]] and [[women]] for instance, in this obscure thing that we call in some cases trauma, or exquisite pleasure. What happens? If the &quotnbsp;thing&quot#8212; exists in this symbolic structure, if this unitary trait is decisive, the trait of the sameness is here. In order that the &quotnbsp;thing&quot; which [[love]] plus [[unity]]! But after a while it is sought be here in youfinished, it after these two there is necessary nobody, perhaps a [[child]], but that the first trait be rubbed out because the trait itself is a modificationanother level and to generate three is another affair. It is When you try to read the taking away theories of all difference, and in this case, without [[mathematicians]] regarding numbers you find the trait, the first formula &quot;thing:n plus 1 (n + 1)&quot; is simply lost. The key to this insistence in repetition is that in its essence repetition as repetition the basis of all the symbolical sameness is impossibletheories. In any case, the subject It is the effect this question of this repetition in as much as it necessitates the &quot;fading,one more&quot; the obliteration, of the first foundation of the subject, which that is why the subject, by status, is always presented as a divided essence. The trait, I insist, is identical, but it assures key to the difference only genesis of identity&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;not by effect numbers and instead of sameness or difference but by this [[unifying]] [[unity]] that constitutes two in the difference of identity. This is easy to understand: as we say in French, <i>je vous numérotte</i>, first case I give propose that you each a number; and this assures consider the fact that you are numerically different but nothing more than thatreal numerical genesis of two.
It is necessary that this two constitute the first integer which is not yet born as a number before the two appears. You have made this possible because the two is here to grant existence to the first one: put <i>two</i> in the place of <i>one</i> and consequently in the place of the <i>two</i> you see <i>three</i> appear. What we have here is something which I can call the <i>mark</i>. You already have something which is marked or something which is not marked. It is with the first mark that we have the status of the thing. It is exactly in this fashion that Frege explains the genesis of the number; the class which is characterized by no elements is the first class; you have one at the place of zero and afterward it is easy to understand how the place of one becomes the second place which makes place for two, three, and so on. The question of the two is for us the question of the 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. This first repetition is the only one necessary to explain the genesis of the number, and only one repetition is necessary to constitute the status of the subject. The unconscious subject is something that tends to 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 in order that we may have a repetition. This question cannot be answered too quickly. If you answer too quickly, you will answer that it is necessary that they are the same. In this case the principle of the two should be that of twins&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and why not triplets or quintuplets? In my day we used to teach children that they must not add, for instance, microphones with dictionaries; but this is absolutely absurd, because we would not have addition if we were not able to add microphones with dictionaries or as [[Lewis Carroll]] says, cabbages with kings. The sameness is not in things but in the <i>mark</i> which makes it possible to add things with no consideration as to their differences. The mark has the effect of rubbing out the difference, and this is the key to what happens to the subject, the unconscious subject in the repetition; because you know that this subject repeats something peculiarly significant, the subject is here, for instance, in this obscure thing that we call in some cases trauma, or exquisite pleasure. What happens? If the &quot;thing&quot; exists in this symbolic structure, if this unitary trait is decisive, the trait of the sameness is here. In order that the &quot;thing&quot; which is sought be here in you, it is necessary that the first trait be rubbed out because the trait itself is a modification. It is the taking away of all difference, and in this case, without the trait, the first &quot;thing:&quot; is simply lost. The key to this insistence in repetition is that in its essence repetition as repetition of the symbolical sameness is impossible. In any case, the subject is the effect of this repetition in as much as it necessitates the &quot;fading,&quot; the obliteration, of the first foundation of the subject, which is why the subject, by status, is always presented as a divided essence. The trait, I insist, is identical, but it assures the difference only of identity&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;not by effect of sameness or difference but by the difference of identity. This is easy to understand: as we say in French, <i>je vous numérotte</i>, I give you each a number; and this assures the fact that you are numerically different but nothing more than that.
What can we propose to intuition in order to show that the trait be found in something which is at the same time one or two? Consider the following diagram which I call an inverted eight, after a well-known figure: </p><p align="center" style="line-height: 150%"><img src="moebius.gif" width="111" height="75"></p><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%">You can see that the line in this instance may be considered either as one or as two lines. This diagram can be considered the basis of a sort of essential inscription at the origin, in the knot which constitutes the subject. This goes much further than you might think at first, because you can search for the sort of surface able to receive such inscriptions. You can perhaps see that the sphere, that old symbol for totality, is unsuitable. A torus, a Klein bottle, a cross-cut surface, are able to receive such a cut. And this diversity is very important as it explains many things about the structure of mental disease. If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in 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 will not explain this to you tonight, but to end this difficult talk I must make the following precision.
You can see that the line in this instance may be considered either as one or as two lines. This diagram can be considered the basis of a sort of essential inscription at the origin, in the knot which constitutes the subject. This goes much further than you might think at first, because you can search for the sort of surface able to receive such inscriptions. You can perhaps see that the sphere, that old symbol for totality, is unsuitable. A [[torus]], a Klein bottle, a cross-cut surface, are able to receive such a cut. And this diversity is very important as it explains many things about the structure of mental disease. If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in 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 will not explain this to you tonight, but to end this difficult talk I must make the following precision.
I have only considered the beginning of the series of the integers, because it is an intermediary point between language and reality. [[Language ]] is constituted by the same sort 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, since in language we have a collection of differential traits. In other words, we can say that language is constituted by a set of signifiers&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;for example,<i> ba, ta, pa</i>) etc., etc.&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; a set which is finite. Each signifier is able to support the same process with regard to the subject, and it is very probable that the process of the integers is only a special case of this relation between signifiers. The definition of this collection of signifiers is that they constitute what I call the Other. The difference afforded by the existence of language is that each signifier (contrary to the unitary trait of the integer number) is, in most cases, not identical with itself&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;precisely because we have a collection of signifiers, and in this collection one signifier may or may not designate itself. This is well known and is the principle of Russell's [[paradox]]. If you take the set of all elements which are not members of themselves, the [[set ]] that you constitute with such elements leads you to a paradox which, as you know, leads to a contradiction. In simple terms, this only means that in a universe of discourse nothing contains everything, and here you find again the gap that constitutes the subject. 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 effect afforded by the instance of the trait which is what, with the intervention of the [[letter ]] you determine, places&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;say al, a2, a3&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;and the places are spaces for a [[lack]]. When the [[subject ]] takes the place of the [[lack]], a [[loss ]] is introduced in the [[word]], and this is the definition of the [[subject]]. But to inscribe it, it is necessary to define it in a circle, what I call the [[otherness]], of the sphere of [[language]]. All that is [[language ]] is lent from this [[otherness ]] and this is why the [[subject ]] is always a [[fading ]] thing that runs under the [[chain ]] of signifiers[[signifier]]s. For the definition of a [[signifier ]] is that 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 [[sign]]. The [[sign ]] is something that represents something for somebody, but the [[signifier ]] is something that represents a [[subject ]] for another [[signifier]]. The consequence is that the [[subject disappears ]] [[disappear]]s exactly as in the case of the two [[unitary traitstrait]]s, while under the second [[signifier ]] appears what is called [[meaning ]] or [[signification]]; and then in sequence the other signifiers [[signifier]]s appear and other significations[[signification]]s.
The question of [[desire]] is that the [[fading]] [[subject]] yearns to find itself again by means of some sort of encounter with this miraculous thing defined by the [[phantasm]]. In its endeavor it is sustained by that which I call the [[lost object]] that I evoked in the beginning&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;which is such a terrible thing for the imagination. That which is produced and maintained here, and which in my vocabulary I call the [[object]], lower-case, [[a]], is well known by all [[psychoanalyst]]s as all [[psychoanalysis]] is founded on the [[existence]] of this peculiar [[object]]. But the relation between this [[bar]]red [[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]].
The question of desire is that the fading subject yearns to find itself again by means of some sort of encounter with this miraculous thing defined by the phantasm. In its endeavor it is sustained by that which I call the lost object that I evoked in the beginning&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;which is such a terrible thing for the imagination. That which 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>vécuvécu</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 <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:Jacques Lacan]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:New]]
[[Category:HelpEdit]]
[[Category:Index]]
Root Admin, Bots, Bureaucrats, flow-bot, oversight, Administrators, Widget editors
24,654
edits

Navigation menu