Changes

The events of May 68 had resulted in Seminar XVII, ===''Jouissance''===The ''The Other Side of PsychoanalysisSeminar'' (whose cover shows Daniel Cohn-Bendit facing a member of the CRS, the French mobile police forces), an upside down resumption of the Freudian project XX, which also resorts to another "reverse," like the one invented by Balzac in Jacques Lacan called ''The Seamy Side of HistoryEncore''that digs another hollow space in the heart of the city; the other side would be what psychoanalysis tries to keep away from, making a detour to a better addresswas delivered between December 12, for example1972 and June 26, the discourse of the Master1975. Indeed Lacan sets up his theory of It takes [[place]] at a turning point in French [[politics]] after the four discourses, which are four different forms events of arrangements between the subject and the Other, more exactly between the subjectMay 68, its signifiers and knowledge, on in the one hand, and the rest that results from this same arrangement, called surplus-''jouir'' (''plus-de-jouir'')teaching of Jacques Lacan. We run here into a reference made to profit, the "bonus" which according to Marx results from the capitalist mode of production[. Therefore we find ourselves in a political dimension that belongs to the unconscious and which authorizes the expression: "The unconscious is politics." Social ties (there is two for socializing) between these instances, which Lacan calls "discourse."]

2. In ''Encore'' (whose cover shows Bernini's ''The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa''as it stands in the [[Church ]] of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome) the puzzle of the [[discourses ]] recurs again and again, but the issue unfolds in the [[dimension ]] that rules Lacan's teaching at least since ''Seminar'' XVI ''D'un [[Autre ]] à l'autre''—''From an Other to the other''—(just before [[1968]]!) until its very end, until it becomes almost the dominant [[category]], that is ''jouissance''. (''Jouissance''posited as an absolute, see Chapter XIII of the ''Seminar[[Seminar XVI]]'' XVI).

Thus this is no wonder that ''jouissance'' (of which one must not forget the [[legal ]] origin, fruit and tenure) is introduced early in its opposition to the functional: "''Jouissance'' is what is useless." The [[superego]], the [[concept ]] of [[Freud]]'s second [[topography ]] to which he gave a repressive [[meaning ]] ([[Kant]]'s [[Moral ]] Law), Lacan did not consider it less brutal, but he also deems it [[obscene]], and changes its orientation by enjoining it ''Jouis!'' (Yes, I mean the Law, I heard, ''j'ouis'', her [[voice]], and she becomes my [[desire]]). And soon taking up residence in the field of sexuality, this approach brings about the following statements: a) "The ''jouissance'' of the Other, of the Other's [[body ]] that symbolizes it, is not a [[sign ]] of love." b) "Ultimately, one person's body is just a part of the Other's body." c) Finally,"…it is the Other who ''jouit''."<ref>Lacan J., Encore, [[The Seminar ]] of Jacques Lacan, Book XX, 1972-1973, New York: W.W. Norton, 1998, p.23.</ref> Then, "there is a [[hole ]] there and that hole is called the Other."<ref>''Ibid'', p. 113</ref>] Later on Lacan will declare that "the Other doesn't [[exist]]."

===Sexuality==3. From then on a [[relationship ]] between ''jouissance'' and sexuality is articulated (according to a [[topology ]] that will be developed later on in the seminar), a relationship which cannot be reduced to the [[male ]] and [[female ]] orgasms, but one that will meet the obstacle of [[choice ]] set up by [[psychoanalysis]], namely that "there is no [[sexual relationship]]" and that will be resolved by way of love, made up for its [[absence]]. "What makes up the sexual relationship is, quite precisely, love."<ref>''Ibid'', p. 44</ref>

If phallic 4. The ''jouissanceSeminar'' can encapsulate  XX performs as a whole and in theory on ''jouissance'' in its more persistent meanings a whole range of psychoanalytic issues such as orgasm pleasure[[complex]] relationship with love, where Freud's emphasis on [[narcissism]] remains evident, and where the pleasure principleopposition between desire and love's [[demand]], sexual satisfactionwhich dominated the so-called "classical" [[Lacanian]] theory (we propose here a rather flexible periodization), sexual fetishism, perversion, etc., it has now is [[being]] [[displaced]] to a more central articulation and perhaps to contend a more consistent involvement with this other dimension the deepening of itselfthe [[clinic]]: the opposition between phallic ''jouissance'', one and that is often considered enigmatic, an other ''jouissance'', the one called Lacan named "supplementary ''jouissance''."<ref>''Ibid'', p. 72</ref> It will allow Lacan (in Chapter VI of the other Seminar "God and Woman([[barred]]) ''jouissanceJouissance''") to assign to the mystical a point of fall (or) of [[real]]. As a result, the reputed mystical [[delusions]] are just "mere business of fucking."

5. So there, psychoanalysis feels embarrassed with this other ===Phallic ''jouissance'', and the following statement reveals the discomfort: "Were there another vs. feminine ''jouissance'' than ===If phallic ''jouissance'', it shouldn't be/could never fail to be that one." From there on the paradox is established:  can encapsulate as a [[whole]] and in fact there is no other than phallic ''jouissance'' (its more persistent [[meanings]] a whole range of [[psychoanalytic]] issues such as [[orgasm]] [[pleasure]], detumescencethe pleasure [[principle]], the primacy of the phallussexual [[satisfaction]], sexual [[fetishism]], [[perversion]], etc.) "except the one concerning which woman doesn't breathe a word." Psychoanalysis therefore assumes here that woman is capable of an unverifiable ''jouissance'', it has now to contend with this other (other than the one Charles de Brosses, a libertine from the eighteenth century, boasted to recognize in the traits dimension of Bernini's ''Saint Theresa''). It is then necessary to Lacan to resort to a Stoic logic according to which truth is deduced from the false: "Suppose that there is another (true!)—but there isn't (false!)." The doubt remainsitself, after all, and it weighs heavily: the male is intrigued and ponders over the notion one that woman is notoften considered enigmatic, is never whole, or ''encore'' that The woman (as a whole) does not exist. "There is a ''jouissance'' that is hers (the woman), that belongs to that ‘she' that doesn't exist and doesn't signify anything."<ref>''Ibid'', p. 74</ref> Hence the idea that we are dealing with "a an other ''jouissance'' that is in the realm of the infinite."<ref>''Ibid'', p. 103</ref>  And "Why not interpret one face of called the Other, the God face, as based on feminine other ''jouissance''?"<ref>''Ibid'', p. 77</ref></autolinks>

5. So there, psychoanalysis feels embarrassed with this other ''jouissance'', and the following [[statement]] reveals the discomfort: "Were there another ''jouissance'' than phallic ''jouissance'', it shouldn't be/could never fail to be that one." From there on the [[paradox]] is established: in fact there is no other than phallic ''jouissance'' (such as orgasm, detumescence, the primacy of the [[phallus]], etc.) "except the one concerning which woman doesn't breathe a [[word]]." Psychoanalysis therefore assumes here that woman is capable of an unverifiable ''jouissance'', other (other than the one Charles de Brosses, a libertine from the eighteenth century, boasted to recognize in the traits of Bernini's ''Saint Theresa''). It is then necessary to Lacan to resort to a Stoic [[logic]] according to which [[truth]] is deduced from the [[false]]: "Suppose that there is [[another]] ([[true]]!)—but there isn't (false!)." The [[doubt]] remains, after all, and it weighs heavily: the male is intrigued and ponders over the [[notion]] that woman is not, is never whole, or ''encore'' that The woman (as a whole) does not exist. "There is a ''jouissance'' that is hers (the woman), that belongs to that ‘she' that doesn't exist and doesn't [[signify]] anything."<ref>''Ibid'', p. 74</ref> Hence the [[idea]] that we are dealing with "a ''jouissance'' that is in the realm of the infinite."<ref>''Ibid'', p. 103</ref>  And "Why not [[interpret]] one face of the [[Other, the]] God face, as based on feminine ''jouissance''?"<ref>''Ibid'', p. 77</ref> ==21 novembre Novembre 1972==

==20 février Février 1973==

[[Category:Seminars]] [[Category:Jacques Lacan]]</noautolinks>__NOTOC__ __NOAUTOLINKS__