Changes

[[Image:Sem16.jpg{{SeminarsNavBar|thumbRightPrevLink=Seminar XV|right]]RightPrevText=Seminar XV|RightNextLink=Seminar XVII|RightNextText=Seminar XVII}}

{| align="center" style="width:600px; border:1px solid #aaa;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;"|-| style="width:100px;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;" | 1968-1969 Le séminaire, Livre | style="width:100px;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left:10px;" | [[Seminar XVI]]| style="width:300px;text-align:left; line-height:2.0em; padding-left: 10px;" | ''[[Seminar XVI|D'un Autre à l'autre.French: unpublished.]]''<BR><big>[[Seminar XVI|From an Other to the Other]]</big>English: unpublished.|}

Lacan takes a stand in the crisis of the university that follows May 1968[[Image: "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 knowledgeSem16." He rejects nonconceptualization: structure is the real. Dealing with the passage from objet a to the Other and from the Other to objet a, Lacan analyzes and combines Pascal, Marx and the logic of the link between l, the unbroken line, the trait unitaire of L'identification and a as follows:jpg|border|350px|right]]

To that, he adds questions on feminine jouissance (is it [[Lacan]] takes a stand in the place crisis of the Other or of the Thing?), on the nullibiquité, non-ubiquitousness, of the phallus [[university]] that testifies that jouissance is real but follows [[May 1968]]: "If [[psychoanalysis]] cannot be symbolized, on the Phallus articulated as a symbol that is lacking or outside system, [[knowledge]] and the repetition of the Graphs of Desire.Marx invented surplus-valuetaught as such, plus-valueit has no [[place]] in Academia, and he, Lacan, invented the objet where it is only amatter of knowledge. " He asserts that he rejects nonconceptualization: [[structure]] is going to construct the plus-de-jouir so as to isolate the objet a, he will do so by homology [[real]]. Dealing with surplus-value. In the matheme of fantasy, passage from <i>a, "the being of a is the plus-de-jouir, surplus-jouissance.* At the level of the enunciation, perversion reveals "surplus-jouissance in its bare form." The rapport between surplus-jouissance and surplus-value is the function of the [[objet ]] a. The perverse has given to God his true plenitude by giving a back </i> to the [[Other. Hence, a is in A (]] and from the small other is in the big Other); however, a makes a hole in A. Jouissance is excluded, the Other is the place where it is known, a is the effect of fall that results from it. So, after going from a to A, one must go from A to <i>[[objet a."I mainly talk about a dead God, maybe in order to better free myself from my relation to a dead Freud." Yet, in Le Pari]]</i>, Lacan analyzes and combines [[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 [[Marx]] and the surplus-jouissance. The assumption [[logic]] of the loss creates the gap, béance, link between the body and its jouissance: such is the effect of the objet al, the lost objectunbroken line, in the field <i>[[trait]] unitaire</i> of the Other. For Pascal, the central point is "the infinite nothing"; the only salvation is grace, for God<i>L'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) [[identification]]</i> and as the rapport of jouissance to castration. "The Name-of-the-Father is <i>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."Slavoj Zizek aptly describes surplus-jouissance (lacanian ink 15) </i> as follows:[[Image:lacansem1c1.gif]]<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 objet a as surplus-jouissance, 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'.The key to this perturbation is the surplus-jouissance, the objet a 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).Perhaps, sexual difference enters here in an unexpected way[[Image: 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-jouissance 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 jouissance embodied in the unconditional supergo injunction to enjoy, jouir 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."* Bruce Fink notes that the translation of plus-de-jouir rendered in Television (New York: Norton, 1989) as "over-coming" is deficient. Since plus-de-jouir is based on plus-value (Marx's surplus value), it means a surplus, extra or supplemental jouissance: the plus should be understood in the sense of Encore, More. He stresses that "the more sensual sense of being 'overcome' with or 'overwhelmed' by pleasure is related to the Other jouissancelacansem1c1.gif|center]]

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]], <font face="LACAN" size="3">S</font>&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>.  ==French=={| class="wikitable floatright" 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;"| bgcolor="#ffffff" width="200px" style="padding-left:10px" height"30" | Date| bgcolor="#ffffff" width="50px" style="padding-left:10px" | PDF|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 13 novembre 1968| [https://mega.nz/#!PXoXjQxC!0IqyKxc_AUIr-0GuUq4Tjc6k0mBdiQt6u9ziQrzP5iw link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 20 novembre 1968 | [https://mega.nz/#!vX4xGK5S!vvrOStTem2XbmM9dyLlNxJ52qp8HTdyuv9Gepp-bpKA link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 27 novembre 1968 | [https://mega.nz/#!7Hh3DCIB!txn0id0flBt8gxke-ZgfQgbo1TnwxCBR-E_KXwLADOE link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 04 décembre 1968 | [https://mega.nz/#!mDxRlYQD!51nVX6q4VGIaZVtMeIDNYY8a4AyGpxXXNegwVRw-Uxs link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 11 décembre 1968 | [https://mega.nz/#!vf4DSKpZ!ysBLm5qowFhlreogZ99ionvaNUbhEByfUXvLpDvNQ1g link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 08 janvier 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!GHxnWIzJ!TnSfDGtNqWdpfpyR8XLPuyqIJq2Y9mr8jVNE0b-52fk link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 15 janvier 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!6XwTRQxI!ojycDPH-Al91jPIwIr5Mj4v-nXlwJbyx30QJjbcXwrA link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 22 janvier 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!XLphxa5I!XJk-gxwiDJ64PrwThK1JVQReZ4nCUsF1lTgigONsKNc link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 29 janvier 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!nCxTCCLD!lDUEi9-M08gt1LS_To5UQg0NHvIXkieUsKZ1pr0iI6I link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 05 février 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!uWxTyIYK!YbLy0mMLtldYkPYc_g3aHDEenKJQRFACgnw1d4kv0Tw link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 12 février 1969| [https://mega.nz/#!LL5VhIjQ!ApDca5P5tPlCsVsxqRSV8A4ZhGFa3DhiahEWRLa5Xnw link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 26 février 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!2KwTGCqR!GWvGTg9sK7IQdEZjCEMjIBGFMiIDhdy-zArTKX8uB2w link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 05 mars 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!6axXCA6L!CJukr6127AXJdEKS2J5WeI3fdRcIpSFISPZ13sEQg_M link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 12 mars 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!jT51FQTK!C0nhbf4c1-jF0mVeh-NPXGqpsBB_oJQIVSBLQru_DEM link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 19 mars 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!GOo1xS7a!DxSAA_GRF5ZwltUjdn9mD4EEtFDZmrlZM_UCF_tQGag link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 26 mars 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!PT5zCIAb!CzD8qSzbZAkA8pHzg2rIGntT2QMrrnLwDDg4BNZf0Bo link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 23 avril 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!ib5lhIbD!j8LGxyjdD_-xDK7DKCheEy6GbpDNFYZkH5krcqZceUU link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 30 avril 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!XTgxgQoI!V-EAGo2NYwK_zWxuI1p5ktIkEB2rQcXeGhW6DYxRvOY link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 07 mai 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!6LgFgCgB!9o8jdWGdynHQrVNwa9sDyelvlWtwKShFtB89sjYfQeQ link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 14 mai 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!fWxlwKoL!XK03B02ofoDFCS5xz7orjTrJ7oX-D2CQ_OGQGdkw37c link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 21 mai 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!GKxh1A6B!qk2zkqIU5AxAEs88LgExRIwz0BRFkmQCZey0YYKshi8 link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 04 juin 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!KexXwQSJ!_WunblYMSalCOlCsMLpBnVBA0P4fHPmIa_AaNM7-oks link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 11 juin 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!TGpnACbL!7SWp7REykKWY_PD48CKiwGEHPsLWnPQV2vTURX59LeQ link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 18 juin 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!XDxh3CYZ!1ujGXZeql49L8kBL0pGS5A1afpd3NDeL_H9IO4RncXA link]|-| bgcolor="#ffffff" style="padding-left:15px" | 25 juin 1969 | [https://mega.nz/#!nboRhQ7K!GO2yLQmUHemLzXXjpIH1pl2NbKr-YOkJILuZp7BEZ58 link]|}French versions of [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan's]] [[Seminars]] Source: http://ecole-lacanienne.net* [[:File:Seminaire_16.pdf|Download]]<BR>{{Center|<pdf width="500px" height="600px">File:Seminaire_16.pdf</pdf>}} <!-- [[1968]]-1969<b>Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un [[Autre]] à l'autre.</b><br>[[French]]: unpublished.<br>[[English]]: unpublished. -->[[Category:Seminars]]