Difference between revisions of "Seminar VII"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Sem7.jpg|thumb|right|'''L'éthique de la psychanalyse.''']] | [[Image:Sem7.jpg|thumb|right|'''L'éthique de la psychanalyse.''']] | ||
| + | ''Le séminaire, Livre VII: L'éthique de la psychanalyse, 1959-1960'' . Paris: Editions du Seuil. 1986. | ||
| + | English version: ''The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII: The [[ethics]] of Psychoanalysis, 1959-1960''. Ed. J.-A. Miller. Trans. D. Porter. London: Routledge, 1992. | ||
| + | ==Description== | ||
| + | This [[seminar]] has been crucial for the wider dissemination of [[Lacan]]ian ideas in the [[humanities]] and [[social science]]s and it provides a constant reference point for [[Žižek]] as well as [[feminism|feminist]] [[criticism|critics]]. | ||
| + | The [[seminar]] contains [[Lacan]]'s only reference to ''[[das Ding]]'' (the [[Thing]]) as well as his reflections on [[sublimation]] and ''[[''[[jouissance]]'']]''. | ||
| + | The [[seminar] is probably most well known though for [[Lacan]]'s discussion of [[Sophocles]]' [[ancient]] [[Greek]] [[tragedy]] ''[[Antigone]]'', where he elaborates one of his most influential definitions of the [[[[ethics]]|ethical]] [[act]] - "not to give way on one's desire" - and [[feminine]] [[sexuality]] in relation to [[courtly love]] [[poetry]]. | ||
| + | This seminar is a very accessible and essential reading. | ||
| − | '' | + | ==Back of the Book== |
| − | + | Jacques Lacan dedicates this seventh year of his famous seminar to the problematic role of ethics in psychoanalysis. | |
| + | |||
| + | Delving into the psychoanalyst's inevitable involvement with ethical questions and "the attraction of transgression," Lacan illuminates Freud's psychoanalytic work and its continued influence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lacan explores the problem of sublimation, the paradox of jouissance, the essence of tragedy (a reading of Sophocle's Antigone), and the tragic dimension of analytic experience. | ||
| + | |||
| + | His exploration leads us to startling insights on "the consequence of man's relationship to desire" and the conflicting judgments of ethics and analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Summary== | ||
| + | |||
| + | At the root of the [[[[ethics]]]] is [[desire]], but a [[desire]] marked by the "fault". | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Analysis]]' only promise is austere: it is "the entrance into-the-I," ''l'entrée-en-Je''. | ||
| + | "I must come to the place where the ''Id'' was," where the [[analysand]] discovers, in its absolute nakedness, the [[truth]] of his [[desire]]. | ||
| + | The [[end]] of the [[cure]] is then the purification of [[desire]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Lacan]] makes three statements: | ||
| + | * one is only [[[[guilt]]y]] of "having given in on one's [[desire]]"; | ||
| + | * "the [[hero]] is the one who can be betrayed with impunity"; | ||
| + | * [[good]]s [[exist]], but "there is no other [[good]] than the one that can pay the price of the access to [[desire]]," a [[desire]] that is only valid insofar as it is [[desire]] to know. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Lacan]] laudes [[Oedipus at Colonus]] who calls down curses before [[death|dying]], and he associates him with [[Antigone]], walled up alive, who has not given in at all. | ||
| + | Both have rejected the right to live in order to enter the "[[between the two deaths|in-between-two-deaths]]," - ''entre-deux-morts'' - that is [[immortality]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Since ''Le désir et son intépretation'', the [[analysis]] of the son's passion ([[subject]]) has become more pressing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Who is the [[Father]]? Here is the terrible [[Father]] of the [[primal horde]] ([[Freud]]'s ''[[Totem and Taboo]]''); [[Luther]]'s [[God]] with "his eternal hatred against men, a hatred that existed even before the world was born"; the [[father]] of the [[law]] who, as to [[Saint Paul]], leads to [[temptation]]: "For me, the very [[commandment]] - Thou shall not covet - which should lead to [[life]] has proved to be [[death]] to me. For [[sin]], finding opportunity in the [[commandment]], [[seduce]]d me and by it killed me." | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Lacan]] adds, "I have put the [[Thing]] in the place of [[sin]]," denouncing the complicity between the [[law]] and the [[Thing]], "which is called [[Evil]]." | ||
| + | |||
| + | But what is the [[Thing]] against which the [[Father]] cannot or does not know how to defend himself? | ||
| + | It has nothing to do with the [[object]], which is created by [[word]]s. | ||
| + | It is the [[outside]] [[signifier]] and also the hostile [[outside]] [[signified]]: a mute [[reality]] prior to [[primal]] [[repression]] that puts in its place the pure [[signifying]] web without being able to hide it. | ||
| + | It is the [[center]] of the [[unconscious]] but it is [[exclude]]d; it is the [[real]] but always represented by an [[emptiness]], the nonthing, ''l'a chose'', the [[nothing]], a [[hole]] in the [[real]] from which the [[Word]], the [[Signifier]], creates the [[world]]. | ||
| + | It is the [[place]] of [[dead]]ly ''[[''[[jouissance]]'']]'' sanctioned by the [[prohibition]] of [[incest]]. | ||
| + | It is associated with the [[mother]] who represents it by her [[manifest]] carnality, and with [[woman]] who, [[ideal]]ized in [[courtly love]], speaks the [[truth]]: "I am [[nothing]] but the [[emptiness]] which is in my cloaca." | ||
| + | The idea of a distorted [[sexuality]] meets the 70s mantra: "There is no such [[thing]] as a [[sexual rapport]]." | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Woman]], who is the other, bears the burden of the curse, although the [[Thing]] is settled at the heart of all [[subject]]s who have to recognize it. | ||
| + | Who am I? | ||
| + | "You are the waste that falls in the world through the devil's anus." | ||
| + | However, salvation holds on by a thread: the theme of the exquisiteness of the son's [[love]] for the [[father]] would be amplified in ''[[Other of the Other|D'un Autre à l'autre]]''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This [[father]] is a [[symbolic]] [[Father]], he is all the more present for being [[absent]], a [[Father]] without a [[body]] or the glorious body of [[signifier]]s, a [[father]] who can only be the [[object]] of an [[act]] of faith, for: there is no [[Other of the Other]] to [[guarantee]] him. | ||
| + | [[Sublimation]] is an attempt to confront the [[Thing]]: true [[love]] for one's [[neighbor]] consists in recognizing in him, as in oneself, the [[place]] and the wound of the [[Thing]]. | ||
| + | As for dis[[belief]], by [[rejecting]] the [[thing]] it makes it [[appearance|reappear]] in the [[Real]], which is the [[Lacan]]ian [[definition]] of [[psychosis]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If [[ethical]] [[thought]] "is at the centre of our work as [[analyst]]s," then, in the [[cure]], [[[[ethics]]]] converges from two sides. | ||
| + | On the side of the [[analysand]] is the problem of [[[[guilt]]]] and the [[pathogenic]] nature of [[civilised]] [[morality]]. | ||
| + | [[Freud]] conceives of a basic conflict between the [[demand]]s of [[civilised]] [[morality]] and the essentially amoral [[sexual]] [[drive]]s of the [[[[patient]]]]. | ||
| + | If [[morality]] takes the upper hand and the [[drive]]s are too intense to be [[sublimate]]d, [[sexuality]] is either expressed in [[perverse]] forms or [[repressed]]. | ||
| + | [[Freud]] further develops this idea in his [[theory]] of an [[unconscious]] sense of [[[[guilt]]]] and in his concept of the [[superego]], that [[interior]] [[moral]] [[agency]] which becomes [[cruel]]er to the extent that the [[ego]] submits to its [[demand]]s. | ||
| + | The [[analyst]], on the other hand, has to deal with the [[pathogenic]] [[morality]] and [[unconscious]] [[[[guilt]]]] of the [[[[patient]]]] and with the [[ethical]] problems that arise in the [[cure]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Lacan]] addresses the issue of how the [[analyst]] will respond to the [[[[patient]]]]'s sense of [[guilt]] by arguing that he must take it seriously, for whenever the [[patient]] feels [[guilt]]y it is because he has given way to his [[desire]]: "the only [[thing]] of which one can be [[guilt]]y is of having given ground relative to one's [[desire]]." | ||
| − | + | As to the [[pathogenic]] [[morality]] acting through the [[superego]], [[Lacan]] asserts that [[psychoanalysis]] is not a [[libertine]] [[ethos]]. | |
| − | + | The [[ethical]] [[position]] of the [[analyst]] is revealed by the way that he formulates the [[goal]] of the ]]cure]]. | |
| + | [[Ego-psychology]], for instance, proposes a [[normative]] [[ethics]] in the [[adaptaion]] of the [[ego]] to [[reality]]. | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] opposes this stance and devises an [[ethics]] relating [[action]] to [[desire]]: "Have you acted in conformity with the [[desire]] that is in you?" | ||
| + | Traditional [[ethics]] ([[Aristotle]], [[Kant]]) revolves around the concept of the [[Good]], where different [[good]]s compete for the position of Supreme [[Good]]. | ||
| + | [[Lacan]]ian [[ethics]] see the [[Good]] as an obstacle in the path of [[desire]], thus "a repudiation of the idea of Good is necessary." | ||
| + | It also [[reject]]s [[ideal]]s, such as [[health]] and [[happiness]]. | ||
| + | Traditional [[ethics]] tends to link the [[good]] to [[[[pleasure]]]]: [[moral]] [[thought]] has "developed along the paths of an [[hedonistic]] problematic." | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] does not take such an approach because [[psychoanalytic]] [[experience]] has revealed the duplicity of [[pleasure]]: there is a limit to [[pleasure]], and when it is transgressed, it becomes pain. | ||
| + | ''[[jouissance]]'' is the paradoxical [[satisfaction]] that the [[subject]] derives from his [[symptom]], the suffering he derives from his [[satisfaction]]. | ||
| + | Finally traditional [[ethics]] puts work and a safe, ordered [[existence]] before questions of [[desire]] by telling people to make their [[desire]]s wait. | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] forces the [[subject]] to confront the relation between his [[action]]s and his [[desire]] in the immediacy of the [[present]]. | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] introduces the notion of ''[[das Ding]]'', the [[Thing]], via the opposition between the [[pleasure principle]] and the [[reality principle|principle of reality]], this opposition, however, is deluding since the latter is but a modification of the former. | ||
| + | Two are the contexts where ''[[das Ding]]'' operates. | ||
| + | Firstly there is [[Freud]]'s distinction between ''Wortvorstellungen'', [[word-presentation]]s, and ''Sachvorstellungen'', [[thing-presentation]]s. | ||
| + | The two types are bound together in the [[preconscious]]-[[conscious]] [[system]], whereas in the [[unconscious]] only [[thing-presentation]]s are found. | ||
| + | This seems to contradict the [[linguistic]] nature of the [[unconscious]]. | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] counters the objection by pointing out that there are two words in [[German]] for "[[thing]]": ''[[das Ding]]'' and ''die Sache''. | ||
| + | [[Freud]] employs the latter to refer to the [[thing-presentation]]s in the [[unconscious]] , and if at one level ''Sachvorstellungen'' and ''Wortvorstellungen'' are opposed, on the [[symbolic]] level they go together. | ||
| + | ''Die Sache'' is the [[representation]] of a [[thing]] in the [[symbolic]], whereas ''[[das Ding]]'' is the [[thing]] in the [[real]], which is "the beyond-of-the-signified." | ||
| + | [[Thing-presentations]] found in the [[unconscious]] are of [[linguistic]] nature, as opposed to ''[[das Ding]]'', which is [[outside]] [[language]] and [[outside]] the [[unconscious]] . | ||
| + | "The [[thing]] is characterized by the fact that it is [[impossible]] for us to imagine it." | ||
| + | Yet, in relation to ''[[jouissance]]'', as well as being the [[object]] of [[language]], ''[[das Ding]]'' is the [[object]] of [[desire]]. | ||
| + | It is the [[lost]] [[object]] which must be continually looked for, the unforgettable [[Other]], the [[forbidden]] [[object]] of [[incest]]uous [[desire]], the [[mother]]. | ||
| + | The [[thing]] appears to the [[subject]] as the Supreme [[Good]], but if the [[subject]] [[trangress]]es the [[pleasure principle]] and attains it, it is experienced as [[suffering]] or/and [[evil]] because the [[subject]] "cannot stand the extreme [[good]] that ''[[das Ding]]'' may bring on him." | ||
| + | It would seem then fortunately that the [[thing]] is usually [[inaccessible]]. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ==Definition== |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | At the end of the [[Ethics of Psychoanalysis]], the [[seminar]] in which the central question of the relationship between [[action] and the [[desire]] that inhabits us is explored in its [[tragic]] dimension, [[Lacan]] reminds us again of this other, [[comic]] dimension: | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | <blockquote>However little time I have thus far devoted to the comic here, you have been able to see that there, too, it is a question of the relationship between action and desire, and of the former's fundamental failure to catch up with the latter.<ref>SVII, p. 313</ref></blockquote> | |
| − | |||
| + | Indeed, the “relationship between [[action]] and [[desire]]” is what defines the field of [[ethics]], | ||
| − | + | This [[seminar]] proves the importance [[Lacan]] attributed to the question of [[ethics]]. | |
| − | + | He was to return again and again to the problematic of the [[ethics]] seminar, starting from the [[seminar]] of the following year ([[Transference]]) up to [[Encore]] (1972-3) which starts with a reference to the [[seminar]]s on [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. | |
| − | + | In fact it is in [[Encore] where [[Lacan]] states that his [[ethics]] [[seminar]] was the only one he wanted to rewrite and publish as a written text.<ref>xx 53</ref> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | ==Contents== | ||
| + | ====Outline of the [[seminar]]==== | ||
| + | ===Introduction to the [[Thing]]=== | ||
| + | ====[[Pleasure]] and [[Reality]]==== | ||
| + | ====Rereading the ''[[Entwurf]]''==== | ||
| + | ====''[[Das Ding]]''==== | ||
| + | ====''[[Das Ding]]'' (II)==== | ||
| + | ====On the [[moral]] [[law]]==== | ||
| + | ===The Problem of [[Sublimation]]=== | ||
| + | ====[[Drive]]s and [[lure]]s==== | ||
| + | ====The [[object]] and the [[thing]]==== | ||
| + | ====On creation ''ex nihilo''==== | ||
| + | ====Marginal comments==== | ||
| + | ====[[Courtly love]] as [[anamorphosis]]==== | ||
| + | ====A critique of [[Bernfeld]]==== | ||
| + | ===The [[Paradox]] of ''[[Jouissance]]''=== | ||
| + | ====The [[death]] of [[God]]==== | ||
| + | ====[[Love]] of one's [[neighbor]]==== | ||
| + | ====The ''[[jouissance]]'' of [[transgression]]==== | ||
| + | ====The [[death drive]]==== | ||
| + | ====The function of the [[good]]==== | ||
| + | ====The function of the [[beautiful]]==== | ||
| + | ===The Essence of [[Tragedy]]=== | ||
| + | ====A Commentary on [[Sophocles]]'s ''[[Antigone]]''==== | ||
| + | ====The Splendor of [[Antigone]]==== | ||
| + | ====The articulations of the play==== | ||
| + | ====[[Antigone]] [[between two deaths]]==== | ||
| + | ===The [[Tragic]] Dimension of [[Analytical]] [[Experience]]=== | ||
| + | ====The [[demand]] for [[happiness]] and the [[promise]] of [[analysis]]==== | ||
| + | ====The [[moral]] [[goal]]s of [[psychoanalysis]]==== | ||
| + | ====The [[paradox]]es of [[ethics]] ''or'' Have you [[act]]ed in conformty with your [[desire]]?==== | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
Revision as of 06:49, 21 June 2006
Le séminaire, Livre VII: L'éthique de la psychanalyse, 1959-1960 . Paris: Editions du Seuil. 1986. English version: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII: The ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-1960. Ed. J.-A. Miller. Trans. D. Porter. London: Routledge, 1992.
Contents
Description
This seminar has been crucial for the wider dissemination of Lacanian ideas in the humanities and social sciences and it provides a constant reference point for Žižek as well as feminist critics.
The seminar contains Lacan's only reference to das Ding (the Thing) as well as his reflections on sublimation and [[jouissance]]. The [[seminar] is probably most well known though for Lacan's discussion of Sophocles' ancient Greek tragedy Antigone, where he elaborates one of his most influential definitions of the [[ethics|ethical]] act - "not to give way on one's desire" - and feminine sexuality in relation to courtly love poetry. This seminar is a very accessible and essential reading.
Back of the Book
Jacques Lacan dedicates this seventh year of his famous seminar to the problematic role of ethics in psychoanalysis.
Delving into the psychoanalyst's inevitable involvement with ethical questions and "the attraction of transgression," Lacan illuminates Freud's psychoanalytic work and its continued influence.
Lacan explores the problem of sublimation, the paradox of jouissance, the essence of tragedy (a reading of Sophocle's Antigone), and the tragic dimension of analytic experience.
His exploration leads us to startling insights on "the consequence of man's relationship to desire" and the conflicting judgments of ethics and analysis.
Summary
At the root of the [[ethics]] is desire, but a desire marked by the "fault".
Analysis' only promise is austere: it is "the entrance into-the-I," l'entrée-en-Je. "I must come to the place where the Id was," where the analysand discovers, in its absolute nakedness, the truth of his desire. The end of the cure is then the purification of desire.
Lacan makes three statements:
- one is only [[guilty]] of "having given in on one's desire";
- "the hero is the one who can be betrayed with impunity";
- goods exist, but "there is no other good than the one that can pay the price of the access to desire," a desire that is only valid insofar as it is desire to know.
Lacan laudes Oedipus at Colonus who calls down curses before dying, and he associates him with Antigone, walled up alive, who has not given in at all. Both have rejected the right to live in order to enter the "in-between-two-deaths," - entre-deux-morts - that is immortality.
Since Le désir et son intépretation, the analysis of the son's passion (subject) has become more pressing.
Who is the Father? Here is the terrible Father of the primal horde (Freud's Totem and Taboo); Luther's God with "his eternal hatred against men, a hatred that existed even before the world was born"; the father of the law who, as to Saint Paul, leads to temptation: "For me, the very commandment - Thou shall not covet - which should lead to life has proved to be death to me. For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, seduced me and by it killed me."
Lacan adds, "I have put the Thing in the place of sin," denouncing the complicity between the law and the Thing, "which is called Evil."
But what is the Thing against which the Father cannot or does not know how to defend himself? It has nothing to do with the object, which is created by words. It is the outside signifier and also the hostile outside signified: a mute reality prior to primal repression that puts in its place the pure signifying web without being able to hide it. It is the center of the unconscious but it is excluded; it is the real but always represented by an emptiness, the nonthing, l'a chose, the nothing, a hole in the real from which the Word, the Signifier, creates the world. It is the place of deadly [[jouissance]] sanctioned by the prohibition of incest. It is associated with the mother who represents it by her manifest carnality, and with woman who, idealized in courtly love, speaks the truth: "I am nothing but the emptiness which is in my cloaca." The idea of a distorted sexuality meets the 70s mantra: "There is no such thing as a sexual rapport."
Woman, who is the other, bears the burden of the curse, although the Thing is settled at the heart of all subjects who have to recognize it. Who am I? "You are the waste that falls in the world through the devil's anus." However, salvation holds on by a thread: the theme of the exquisiteness of the son's love for the father would be amplified in D'un Autre à l'autre.
This father is a symbolic Father, he is all the more present for being absent, a Father without a body or the glorious body of signifiers, a father who can only be the object of an act of faith, for: there is no Other of the Other to guarantee him. Sublimation is an attempt to confront the Thing: true love for one's neighbor consists in recognizing in him, as in oneself, the place and the wound of the Thing. As for disbelief, by rejecting the thing it makes it reappear in the Real, which is the Lacanian definition of psychosis.
If ethical thought "is at the centre of our work as analysts," then, in the cure, [[ethics]] converges from two sides. On the side of the analysand is the problem of [[guilt]] and the pathogenic nature of civilised morality. Freud conceives of a basic conflict between the demands of civilised morality and the essentially amoral sexual drives of the [[patient]]. If morality takes the upper hand and the drives are too intense to be sublimated, sexuality is either expressed in perverse forms or repressed. Freud further develops this idea in his theory of an unconscious sense of [[guilt]] and in his concept of the superego, that interior moral agency which becomes crueler to the extent that the ego submits to its demands. The analyst, on the other hand, has to deal with the pathogenic morality and unconscious [[guilt]] of the [[patient]] and with the ethical problems that arise in the cure.
Lacan addresses the issue of how the analyst will respond to the [[patient]]'s sense of guilt by arguing that he must take it seriously, for whenever the patient feels guilty it is because he has given way to his desire: "the only thing of which one can be guilty is of having given ground relative to one's desire."
As to the pathogenic morality acting through the superego, Lacan asserts that psychoanalysis is not a libertine ethos. The ethical position of the analyst is revealed by the way that he formulates the goal of the ]]cure]]. Ego-psychology, for instance, proposes a normative ethics in the adaptaion of the ego to reality. Lacan opposes this stance and devises an ethics relating action to desire: "Have you acted in conformity with the desire that is in you?" Traditional ethics (Aristotle, Kant) revolves around the concept of the Good, where different goods compete for the position of Supreme Good. Lacanian ethics see the Good as an obstacle in the path of desire, thus "a repudiation of the idea of Good is necessary." It also rejects ideals, such as health and happiness. Traditional ethics tends to link the good to [[pleasure]]: moral thought has "developed along the paths of an hedonistic problematic."
Lacan does not take such an approach because psychoanalytic experience has revealed the duplicity of pleasure: there is a limit to pleasure, and when it is transgressed, it becomes pain. jouissance is the paradoxical satisfaction that the subject derives from his symptom, the suffering he derives from his satisfaction. Finally traditional ethics puts work and a safe, ordered existence before questions of desire by telling people to make their desires wait. Lacan forces the subject to confront the relation between his actions and his desire in the immediacy of the present.
Lacan introduces the notion of das Ding, the Thing, via the opposition between the pleasure principle and the principle of reality, this opposition, however, is deluding since the latter is but a modification of the former. Two are the contexts where das Ding operates. Firstly there is Freud's distinction between Wortvorstellungen, word-presentations, and Sachvorstellungen, thing-presentations. The two types are bound together in the preconscious-conscious system, whereas in the unconscious only thing-presentations are found. This seems to contradict the linguistic nature of the unconscious. Lacan counters the objection by pointing out that there are two words in German for "thing": das Ding and die Sache. Freud employs the latter to refer to the thing-presentations in the unconscious , and if at one level Sachvorstellungen and Wortvorstellungen are opposed, on the symbolic level they go together. Die Sache is the representation of a thing in the symbolic, whereas das Ding is the thing in the real, which is "the beyond-of-the-signified." Thing-presentations found in the unconscious are of linguistic nature, as opposed to das Ding, which is outside language and outside the unconscious . "The thing is characterized by the fact that it is impossible for us to imagine it."
Yet, in relation to jouissance, as well as being the object of language, das Ding is the object of desire. It is the lost object which must be continually looked for, the unforgettable Other, the forbidden object of incestuous desire, the mother. The thing appears to the subject as the Supreme Good, but if the subject trangresses the pleasure principle and attains it, it is experienced as suffering or/and evil because the subject "cannot stand the extreme good that das Ding may bring on him." It would seem then fortunately that the thing is usually inaccessible.
Definition
At the end of the Ethics of Psychoanalysis, the seminar in which the central question of the relationship between [[action] and the desire that inhabits us is explored in its tragic dimension, Lacan reminds us again of this other, comic dimension:
However little time I have thus far devoted to the comic here, you have been able to see that there, too, it is a question of the relationship between action and desire, and of the former's fundamental failure to catch up with the latter.[1]
Indeed, the “relationship between action and desire” is what defines the field of ethics,
This seminar proves the importance Lacan attributed to the question of ethics.
He was to return again and again to the problematic of the ethics seminar, starting from the seminar of the following year (Transference) up to Encore (1972-3) which starts with a reference to the seminars on The Ethics of Psychoanalysis.
In fact it is in [[Encore] where Lacan states that his ethics seminar was the only one he wanted to rewrite and publish as a written text.[2]
