Difference between revisions of "Sinthome"
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Top}}symptôme|sinthome{{Bottom}} | ||
| + | |||
=====Definition===== | =====Definition===== | ||
The term [[sinthome]] is, as [[Lacan]] points out, an archaic way of writing what has more recently been spelt [[symptôme]]. | The term [[sinthome]] is, as [[Lacan]] points out, an archaic way of writing what has more recently been spelt [[symptôme]]. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
[[Lacan]] introduces the term in 1975, as the title for the 1975-6 [[seminar]], which is both a continuing elaboration of his [[topology]], extending the previous [[seminar]]'s focus on the [[borromean knot]], and an exploration of the writings of [[James Joyce]]. | [[Lacan]] introduces the term in 1975, as the title for the 1975-6 [[seminar]], which is both a continuing elaboration of his [[topology]], extending the previous [[seminar]]'s focus on the [[borromean knot]], and an exploration of the writings of [[James Joyce]]. | ||
| − | Through this | + | Through this ''coincidentia oppositorum'' -- bringing together [[mathematics|mathematical theory]] and the intricate weave of the [[James Joyce|Joycean]] [[text]] -- [[Lacan]] redefines the [[psychoanalytic]] [[symptom]] in [[terms]] of his final [[topology]] of the [[subject]]. |
=====Development of the Concept of the "Symptom"===== | =====Development of the Concept of the "Symptom"===== | ||
| − | Before the appearance of [[sinthome]], divergent currents in [[Lacan]]'s thinking lead to different inflections of the concept of the [[symptom]]. | + | Before the [[appearance]] of [[sinthome]], divergent currents in [[Lacan]]'s [[thinking]] lead to different inflections of the [[concept]] of the [[symptom]]. |
=====Symptom Inscribed in Writing Process===== | =====Symptom Inscribed in Writing Process===== | ||
| − | As early as 1957, the [[symptom]] is said to be "inscribed in a writing process,"<ref>{{Ec}} p.445</ref> which already implies a different view to that which regards the symptom as a ciphered [[message]]. | + | As early as 1957, the [[symptom]] is said to be "inscribed in a writing [[process]],"<ref>{{Ec}} p.445</ref> which already implies a different view to that which regards the symptom as a ciphered [[message]]. |
=====Symptom as pure ''Jouissance''===== | =====Symptom as pure ''Jouissance''===== | ||
| − | In 1963 [[Lacan]] goes on to state that the [[symptom]], unlike [[acting out]], does not call for [[interpretation]]; in itself, it is not a call to the [[Other]] but a pure ''[[jouissance]]'' addressed to no one.<ref>{{L}} 1962-3. ''Le Séminaire. Livre X. L'angoisse'', 1962-3, unpublished.</ref> | + | In 1963 [[Lacan]] goes on to [[state]] that the [[symptom]], unlike [[acting out]], does not call for [[interpretation]]; in itself, it is not a call to the [[Other]] but a pure ''[[jouissance]]'' addressed to no one.<ref>{{L}} 1962-3. ''[[Seminar X|Le Séminaire. Livre X. L'angoisse]]'', 1962-3, unpublished.</ref> |
=====The Way in Which the Subject Enjoys the Unconscious===== | =====The Way in Which the Subject Enjoys the Unconscious===== | ||
| − | Such comments anticipate the radical transformation of Lacan's thought implicit in his shift from the [[linguistic]] definition of the [[symptom]] - as a [[signifier]] - to his statement, in the 1974-5 [[seminar]], that "the symptom can only be defined as the way in which each subject enjoys [''jouit''] the unconscious, in so far as the unconscious determines him."<ref>{{L}} 1974-5. ''Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI'', 1974-5, published in ''Ornicar?'', nos. 2-5, 1975.</ref> | + | Such comments anticipate the radical transformation of Lacan's [[thought]] implicit in his shift from the [[linguistic]] definition of the [[symptom]] - as a [[signifier]] - to his [[statement]], in the 1974-5 [[seminar]], that "the symptom can only be defined as the way in which each subject [[enjoys]] [''jouit''] the unconscious, in so far as the unconscious determines him."<ref>{{L}} 1974-5. ''[[Seminar XXII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI]]'', 1974-5, published in ''[[Ornicar?]]'', nos. 2-5, 1975.</ref> |
=====Symptom as the Particular Modality of the Subject's ''Jouissance''===== | =====Symptom as the Particular Modality of the Subject's ''Jouissance''===== | ||
| − | This move from conceiving of the [[symptom]] as a [[message]] which can be deciphered by reference to the [[unconscious]] "structured like a language," to seeing it as the trace of the particular modality of the [[subject]]'s ''[[jouissance]]'', culminates in the introduction of the term ''[[sinthome]]''. | + | This move from conceiving of the [[symptom]] as a [[message]] which can be deciphered by reference to the [[unconscious]] "[[structured]] like a language," to [[seeing]] it as the trace of the [[particular]] modality of the [[subject]]'s ''[[jouissance]]'', culminates in the introduction of the term ''[[sinthome]]''. |
=====Kernel of Enjoyment Beyond the Symbolic===== | =====Kernel of Enjoyment Beyond the Symbolic===== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 29: | ||
=====Organization of ''Jouissance''===== | =====Organization of ''Jouissance''===== | ||
| − | Far from calling for some analytic "dissolution," the ''[[sinthome]]'' is what "allows one to live" by providing a unique organisation of ''[[jouissance]]''. | + | Far from calling for some [[analytic]] "[[dissolution]]," the ''[[sinthome]]'' is what "allows one to live" by providing a unique organisation of ''[[jouissance]]''. |
=====Identification with the ''Sinthome''===== | =====Identification with the ''Sinthome''===== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 35: | ||
=====Shift from Linguistics to Topology===== | =====Shift from Linguistics to Topology===== | ||
| − | The theoretical shift from [[linguistics]] to [[topology]] which marks the final period of Lacan's work constitutes the true status of the [[sinthome]] as unanalysable, and amounts to an exegetical problem beyond the familiar one of [[Lacan]]'s dense rhetoric. | + | The [[theoretical]] shift from [[linguistics]] to [[topology]] which marks the final period of Lacan's [[work]] constitutes the [[true]] status of the [[sinthome]] as unanalysable, and amounts to an exegetical problem beyond the familiar one of [[Lacan]]'s dense [[rhetoric]]. |
=====''Sinthome'' as Fourth Ring in Borromean Knot===== | =====''Sinthome'' as Fourth Ring in Borromean Knot===== | ||
| − | The 1975-6 [[seminar]] extends the theory of the [[borromean knot]], which in the previous seminar had been proposed as the essential [[structure]] of the [[subject]], by adding the ''[[sinthome]]'' as a fourth ring to the [[triad]] of the [[real]], the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], tying together a [[knot]] which constantly threatens to come undone. | + | The 1975-6 [[seminar]] extends the [[theory]] of the [[borromean knot]], which in the previous seminar had been proposed as the essential [[structure]] of the [[subject]], by adding the ''[[sinthome]]'' as a fourth ring to the [[triad]] of the [[real]], the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], tying together a [[knot]] which constantly threatens to come undone. |
| − | This [[knot]] is not offered as a model but as a rigorously non-metaphorical description of a [[topology]] "before which the imagination fails."<ref>{{L}} 195-6. ''[[Seminar XXIII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXIII. Le sinthome, 1975-76]]'', published in ''Ornicar?'', nos 6-11, 1976-7. 9 December 1975.</ref> | + | This [[knot]] is not offered as a [[model]] but as a rigorously non-[[metaphorical]] description of a [[topology]] "before which the [[imagination]] fails."<ref>{{L}} 195-6. ''[[Seminar XXIII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXIII. Le sinthome, 1975-76]]'', published in ''[[Ornicar]]?'', nos 6-11, 1976-7. 9 December 1975.</ref> |
Since [[meaning]] (''sens'') is already figured within the [[knot]], at the intersection of the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], it follows that the function of the ''[[sinthome]]'' -- intervening to [[knot]] together [[real]], [[symbolic]] and [[imaginary]] - is inevitably beyond [[meaning]]. | Since [[meaning]] (''sens'') is already figured within the [[knot]], at the intersection of the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], it follows that the function of the ''[[sinthome]]'' -- intervening to [[knot]] together [[real]], [[symbolic]] and [[imaginary]] - is inevitably beyond [[meaning]]. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
In the 1975-6 [[seminar]], [[Joyce]]'s [[writing]] is read as an extended ''[[sinthome]]'', a fourth term whose addition to the [[borromean knot]] of ''RSI'' allows the [[subject]] to cohere. | In the 1975-6 [[seminar]], [[Joyce]]'s [[writing]] is read as an extended ''[[sinthome]]'', a fourth term whose addition to the [[borromean knot]] of ''RSI'' allows the [[subject]] to cohere. | ||
| − | Faced in his childhood by the radical non-function / [[absence]] (''carence'') of the [[Name-of-the-Father]], [[Joyce]] managed to avoid [[psychosis]] by deploying his [[art]] as ''suppléance'', as a supplementary cord in the [[subject]]ive [[knot]]. | + | Faced in his [[childhood]] by the radical non-function / [[absence]] (''carence'') of the [[Name-of-the-Father]], [[Joyce]] managed to avoid [[psychosis]] by deploying his [[art]] as ''suppléance'', as a supplementary cord in the [[subject]]ive [[knot]]. |
| − | [[Lacan]] focuses on [[Joyce]]'s youthful "epiphanies" (experiences of an almost hallucinatory intensity which were then recorded in enigmatic, fragmentary texts) as instances of "radical foreclosure," in which "the real forecloses meaning."<ref>[[Seminar]] of 16 March 1976</ref> | + | [[Lacan]] focuses on [[Joyce]]'s youthful "epiphanies" (experiences of an almost [[hallucinatory]] intensity which were then recorded in enigmatic, fragmentary [[texts]]) as instances of "radical [[foreclosure]]," in which "the real forecloses meaning."<ref>[[Seminar]] of 16 March 1976</ref> |
====="Destructive" Refashioning of Language===== | ====="Destructive" Refashioning of Language===== | ||
The [[Joycean]] text -- from the epiphany to ''[[James Joyce|Finnegans Wake]]'' -- entailed a special relation to [[language]]; a "destructive" refashioning of it as ''[[sinthome]]'', the invasion of the [[symbolic order]] by the [[subject]]'s private ''[[jouissance]]''. | The [[Joycean]] text -- from the epiphany to ''[[James Joyce|Finnegans Wake]]'' -- entailed a special relation to [[language]]; a "destructive" refashioning of it as ''[[sinthome]]'', the invasion of the [[symbolic order]] by the [[subject]]'s private ''[[jouissance]]''. | ||
| − | One of [[Lacan]]'s puns, ''[[sinthome|synth-homme]]'', implies this kind of "artificial" self-creation. | + | One of [[Lacan]]'s puns, ''[[sinthome|synth-homme]]'', implies this kind of "artificial" [[self]]-creation. |
=====Lacan's Engagement with Joyce's Writing===== | =====Lacan's Engagement with Joyce's Writing===== | ||
| − | [[Lacan]]'s engagement with [[Joyce]]'s writing does not, he insists, entail "applied psychoanalysis." | + | [[Lacan]]'s engagement with [[Joyce]]'s writing does not, he insists, entail "applied [[psychoanalysis]]." |
=====Topological Theory===== | =====Topological Theory===== | ||
| − | [[Topology|Topological theory]] is not conceived of as merely another kind of representational account, but as a form of writing, a praxis aiming to figure that which escapes the [[imaginary]]. | + | [[Topology|Topological theory]] is not conceived of as merely [[another]] kind of representational account, but as a [[form]] of writing, a praxis aiming to [[figure]] that which escapes the [[imaginary]]. |
=====''Saint Homme''===== | =====''Saint Homme''===== | ||
=====New Way of Using Language to Organize Enjoyment===== | =====New Way of Using Language to Organize Enjoyment===== | ||
| − | To that extent, rather than a theoretical object or "case," [[Joyce]] becomes an exemplary ''[[sinthome|saint homme]]'' who, by refusing any [[imaginary]] solution, was able to invent a new way of using [[language]] to organise [[enjoyment]]. | + | To that extent, rather than a theoretical [[object]] or "[[case]]," [[Joyce]] becomes an exemplary ''[[sinthome|saint homme]]'' who, by refusing any [[imaginary]] solution, was able to invent a new way of using [[language]] to organise [[enjoyment]]. |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| + | {{See}} | ||
* [[Borromean knot]] | * [[Borromean knot]] | ||
| − | * [[ | + | * [[Interpretation]] |
| − | * [[Jouissance]] | + | * ''[[Jouissance]]'' |
| − | + | || | |
* [[Message]] | * [[Message]] | ||
* [[Psychosis]] | * [[Psychosis]] | ||
* [[Signifier]] | * [[Signifier]] | ||
| + | || | ||
* [[Subject]] | * [[Subject]] | ||
* [[Symptom]] | * [[Symptom]] | ||
* [[Topology]] | * [[Topology]] | ||
| + | {{Also}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| + | <div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"> | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | </div> | ||
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:14, 20 May 2019
| French: sinthome |
Definition
The term sinthome is, as Lacan points out, an archaic way of writing what has more recently been spelt symptôme.
Jacques Lacan
1975-6 Seminar
Lacan introduces the term in 1975, as the title for the 1975-6 seminar, which is both a continuing elaboration of his topology, extending the previous seminar's focus on the borromean knot, and an exploration of the writings of James Joyce.
Through this coincidentia oppositorum -- bringing together mathematical theory and the intricate weave of the Joycean text -- Lacan redefines the psychoanalytic symptom in terms of his final topology of the subject.
Development of the Concept of the "Symptom"
Before the appearance of sinthome, divergent currents in Lacan's thinking lead to different inflections of the concept of the symptom.
Symptom Inscribed in Writing Process
As early as 1957, the symptom is said to be "inscribed in a writing process,"[1] which already implies a different view to that which regards the symptom as a ciphered message.
Symptom as pure Jouissance
In 1963 Lacan goes on to state that the symptom, unlike acting out, does not call for interpretation; in itself, it is not a call to the Other but a pure jouissance addressed to no one.[2]
The Way in Which the Subject Enjoys the Unconscious
Such comments anticipate the radical transformation of Lacan's thought implicit in his shift from the linguistic definition of the symptom - as a signifier - to his statement, in the 1974-5 seminar, that "the symptom can only be defined as the way in which each subject enjoys [jouit] the unconscious, in so far as the unconscious determines him."[3]
Symptom as the Particular Modality of the Subject's Jouissance
This move from conceiving of the symptom as a message which can be deciphered by reference to the unconscious "structured like a language," to seeing it as the trace of the particular modality of the subject's jouissance, culminates in the introduction of the term sinthome.
Kernel of Enjoyment Beyond the Symbolic
The sinthome thus designates a signifying formulation beyond analysis, a kernel of enjoyment immune to the efficacy of the symbolic.
Organization of Jouissance
Far from calling for some analytic "dissolution," the sinthome is what "allows one to live" by providing a unique organisation of jouissance.
Identification with the Sinthome
The task of analysis thus becomes, in one of Lacan's last definitions of the end of analysis, to identify with the sinthome.
Shift from Linguistics to Topology
The theoretical shift from linguistics to topology which marks the final period of Lacan's work constitutes the true status of the sinthome as unanalysable, and amounts to an exegetical problem beyond the familiar one of Lacan's dense rhetoric.
Sinthome as Fourth Ring in Borromean Knot
The 1975-6 seminar extends the theory of the borromean knot, which in the previous seminar had been proposed as the essential structure of the subject, by adding the sinthome as a fourth ring to the triad of the real, the symbolic and the imaginary, tying together a knot which constantly threatens to come undone.
This knot is not offered as a model but as a rigorously non-metaphorical description of a topology "before which the imagination fails."[4]
Since meaning (sens) is already figured within the knot, at the intersection of the symbolic and the imaginary, it follows that the function of the sinthome -- intervening to knot together real, symbolic and imaginary - is inevitably beyond meaning.
Writings of James Joyce
Lacan had been an enthusiastic reader of Joyce since his youth.[5]
In the 1975-6 seminar, Joyce's writing is read as an extended sinthome, a fourth term whose addition to the borromean knot of RSI allows the subject to cohere.
Faced in his childhood by the radical non-function / absence (carence) of the Name-of-the-Father, Joyce managed to avoid psychosis by deploying his art as suppléance, as a supplementary cord in the subjective knot.
Lacan focuses on Joyce's youthful "epiphanies" (experiences of an almost hallucinatory intensity which were then recorded in enigmatic, fragmentary texts) as instances of "radical foreclosure," in which "the real forecloses meaning."[6]
"Destructive" Refashioning of Language
The Joycean text -- from the epiphany to Finnegans Wake -- entailed a special relation to language; a "destructive" refashioning of it as sinthome, the invasion of the symbolic order by the subject's private jouissance.
One of Lacan's puns, synth-homme, implies this kind of "artificial" self-creation.
Lacan's Engagement with Joyce's Writing
Lacan's engagement with Joyce's writing does not, he insists, entail "applied psychoanalysis."
Topological Theory
Topological theory is not conceived of as merely another kind of representational account, but as a form of writing, a praxis aiming to figure that which escapes the imaginary.
Saint Homme
New Way of Using Language to Organize Enjoyment
To that extent, rather than a theoretical object or "case," Joyce becomes an exemplary saint homme who, by refusing any imaginary solution, was able to invent a new way of using language to organise enjoyment.
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.445
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. 1962-3. Le Séminaire. Livre X. L'angoisse, 1962-3, unpublished.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. 1974-5. Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI, 1974-5, published in Ornicar?, nos. 2-5, 1975.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. 195-6. Le Séminaire. Livre XXIII. Le sinthome, 1975-76, published in Ornicar?, nos 6-11, 1976-7. 9 December 1975.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.25; Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p.37
- ↑ Seminar of 16 March 1976
