Changes

{| class="wikitable" width="250px" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" align="center" bgcolor="ffffff" style= "float:right; margin-[[left]]: 10px;line-height:2.0em; padding-left:30px; background:#ffffff; [[text]]-align:center;"

[[1968]]-1969<b>Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un [[Autre ]] à l'autre.</b><br>[[French]]: unpublished.<br>[[English]]: unpublished.

[[Lacan ]] takes a stand in the crisis of the [[university ]] that follows [[May 1968]]: "If [[psychoanalysis ]] cannot be articulated as a [[knowledge ]] and taught as such, it has no [[place ]] in Academia, where it is only a matter of knowledge." He rejects nonconceptualization: [[structure ]] is the [[real]]. Dealing with the passage from <i>[[objet ]] a</i> to the [[Other ]] and from the Other to <i>[[objet a]]</i>, Lacan analyzes and combines [[Pascal]], [[Marx ]] and the [[logic ]] of the link between l, the unbroken line, the <i>[[trait ]] unitaire</i> of <i>L'[[identification]]</i> and <i>a</i> as follows:<br>

To that, he adds questions on [[feminine ]] <i>[[jouissance]]</i> (is it the place of the Other or of the [[Thing]]?), on the <i>nullibiquité</i>, non-ubiquitousness, of the [[phallus ]] that testifies that <i>jouissance</i> is real but cannot be [[symbolized]], on the Phallus as a [[symbol ]] that is [[lacking ]] or [[outside ]] [[system]], and the [[repetition ]] of the [[Graphs ]] of [[Desire]].<br>Marx invented [[surplus]]-[[value]], <i>plus-value</i>, and he, Lacan, invented the <i>objet a</i>. He asserts that he is going to [[construct ]] the <i>plus-de-[[jouir]]</i> so as to isolate the <i>objet a</i>, he will do so by homology with surplus-value. In the [[matheme ]] of [[fantasy]], <img src="lacansem1b1.gif" valign="bottom" height="11" width="12">&lt;&gt;<i>a</i>, "the [[being ]] of <i>a</i> is the <i>[[plus-de-jouir]]</i>, surplus-<i>jouissance</i>.* At the level of the [[enunciation]], [[perversion ]] reveals "surplus-<i>jouissance</i> in its bare [[form]]." The rapport between surplus-<i>jouissance</i> and surplus-value is the function of the <i>objet a</i>. The [[perverse ]] has given to God his [[true ]] plenitude by giving <i>a</i> back to the Other. Hence, <i>a</i> is in A (the small other is in the [[big Other]]); however, <i>a</i> makes a [[hole ]] in A. <i>Jouissance</i> is excluded, the Other is the place where it is known, <i>a</i> is the effect of fall that results from it. So, after going from <i>a</i> to A, one must go from A to <i>a</i>.<br>

"I mainly talk [[about ]] a [[dead ]] God, maybe in [[order ]] to better free myself from my relation to a dead [[Freud]]." Yet, in <i>Le Pari</i>, Pascal raises the question of the [[existence ]] of God. The only true question is that of the [[subject]]: Does I [[exist]]? Do I exist? "The [[nothing ]] that [[life ]] is," which is at stake for Pascal, is the surplus-<i>jouissance</i>. The assumption of the [[loss ]] creates the gap, <i>béance</i>, between the [[body ]] and its <i>jouissance</i>: such is the effect of the <i>objet a</i>, the lost [[object]], in the field of the Other. For Pascal, the central point is "the infinite nothing"; the only salvation is grace, for God's mercy is bigger than His justice. Grace allows proximity to the desire of the Other in its various forms: "I ask myself what you [[want]]," then "I ask you what you want," which leads to "Thy Will be Done!" However, this [[sentence ]] is uttered to a faceless Other. God's will, for not being our will, comes to [[lack]]; then, for lack of God, we are left with the [[Father ]] as dead, the Father as a [[name ]] (the pivot of [[discourse]]) and as the rapport of <i>jouissance</i> to [[castration]]. "The [[Name-of-the-Father ]] is a rift that remains wide open in my discourse, it is only known through an act of [[faith]]: there is no Incarnation in the place of the Other."<br>Slavoj [[Zizek ]] aptly describes surplus-<i>jouissance</i> (<i>[[lacanian ]] ink</i> 15) as follows:<br>

"So in the [[case ]] of the caffeine-free diet Coke, we drink the Nothingness itself, the pure [[semblance ]] of a property that is effectively merely an envelope of a [[void]]. This example makes palpable the inherent link between [[three ]] notions: that of the [[Marxist ]] surplus-value, that of the Lacanian <i>objet a</i> as surplus-<i>jouissance</i>, and the [[paradox ]] of the [[superego]], perceived long ago by Freud: the more you drink Coke, the more you are thirsty; the more profit you have , the more you want; the more you obey the supergo command, the more you are [[guilty]]. In all three cases, the logic of balanced [[exchange ]] is perturbed in favor of an excessive logic of "the more you give, the more you owe (or the consumerist version "the more you buy, the more you have to spend"), of the paradox which is the very opposite of the paradox of [[love ]] where, as Juliet put in her immortal [[words ]] to Romeo, 'the more I give, the more I have'.<br>The key to this perturbation is the surplus-<i>jouissance</i>, the <i>objet a</i> which [[exists ]] (or rather insists) in a kind of curved [[space ]] in which, the more you approach it, the more it eludes your grasp (or, the more you possess it, the greater the lack).<br>Perhaps, [[sexual ]] [[difference ]] enters here in an unexpected way: the [[reason ]] why the supergo is stronger in man is that it is man, not [[woman]], who is intensely related to this [[excess ]] of the surplus-<i>jouissance</i> over the pacifying functionning of the [[symbolic ]] Law. In [[terms ]] of the [[paternal function]], the opposition between the pacifying symbolic Law and the excessive supergo [[injunction ]] is the one between the Name-of-the-Father (the paternal symbolic [[authority]]) and the "primordial father," allowed to [[enjoy ]] all [[women]]. This rapist "primordial father" is a [[male ]] ([[obsessional]]), not feminine ([[hysterical]]), fantasy: it is man who is able to endure his integration into [[the symbolic ]] order only when this integration is sustained by some hidden reference to the fantasy of the unbridled excessive <i>jouissance</i> embodied in the unconditional supergo injunction to enjoy, <i>jouir</i> to go to the extreme, to trangress and force constantly the [[limit]]. It is man in whom the integration into the [[symbolic order ]] is sustained by the superego exception."<br>

* [[Bruce Fink ]] [[notes ]] that the [[translation ]] of <i>plus-de-jouir</i> rendered in <i>[[Television]]</i> (New York: Norton, 1989) as "over-coming" is deficient. Since <i>plus-de-jouir</i> is based on <i>plus-value</i> (Marx's [[surplus value]]), it means a surplus, extra or supplemental <i>jouissance</i>: the <i>plus</i> should be [[understood ]] in the [[sense ]] of <i>[[Encore]]</i>, More. He stresses that "the more sensual sense of being 'overcome' with or 'overwhelmed' by [[pleasure ]] is related to the Other <i>jouissance</i>.