Changes

==Linguistic ===Definition=====As early as 1957, the The term [[symptomsinthome]] is said to be 'inscribed in a writing process' (Ec, 445).   as [[Lacan]] defines the [[symptom]] in [[linguistic]] termspoints out, as a an archaic way of writing what has more recently been spelt [[signifiersymptôme]]. conceiving of the symptom as a message which can be deciphered by reference to the unconscious 'structured like a language',  

The =====Development of the Concept of the "Symptom"=====Before the appearance of [[symptomsinthome]] is not a call to the , divergent currents in [[OtherLacan]] but pure ''s thinking lead to different inflections of the concept of the [[jouissancesymptom]]'' addressed to no one.<ref>Lacan, 1962-3: seminar of 23 January 1963</ref>

"=====Symptom Inscribed in Writing Process=====As early as 1957, the [[symptom]] can only is said to be defined as the way "inscribed in which each [[subject]] [[enjoys]] [jouit] the [[unconscious]]a writing process, in so far as the [[unconscious]] determines him."<ref>Lacan, 1974-5: seminar of 18 February 1975{{Ec}} p.445</ref>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 trace of the particular modality of [[symptom]], unlike [[acting out]], does not call for [[interpretation]]; in itself, it is not a call to the [[subjectOther]]but a pure ''s [[jouissance]]'' addressed to no one.<ref>{{L}} 1962-3. ''Le Séminaire. Livre X. L'angoisse'', culminates in the introduction of the term sinthome1962-3, unpublished.</ref>

The ====Symptom as the Particular Modality of the Subject's ''Jouissance''=====This move from conceiving of the [[sinthomesymptom]] thus designates as a signifying formulation beyond [[analysismessage]]which can be deciphered by reference to the [[unconscious]] "structured like a language, a kernel " to seeing it as the trace of the particular modality of the [[enjoymentsubject]] immune to 's ''[[jouissance]]'', culminates in the efficacy introduction of the term ''[[symbolicsinthome]]''.

=====Kernel of Enjoyment Beyond the Symbolic=====The ''[[sinthome]] is what 'allows one to live' by providing thus designates a unique organisation signifying formulation beyond [[analysis]], a kernel of [[jouissanceenjoyment]] immune to the efficacy of the [[symbolic]].

The task =====Organization of ''Jouissance''=====Far from calling for some analytic "dissolution," the ''[[analysissinthome]] thus becomes, in '' is what "allows one to live" by providing a unique organisation of ''[[Lacanjouissance]]'s last definitions of the [[end of analysis]], to [[identify]] with the [[sinthome]]'.

For =====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 symptom is the fixed manner in which subjects enjoy their unconscious''[[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 [[Lacanseminar]] introduces extends the theory of the term [[borromean knot]], which in 1975, the previous seminar had been proposed as the title for essential [[structure]] of the 1975-6 [[seminarsubject]], which is both by adding the ''[[sinthome]]'' as a continuing elaboration fourth ring to the [[triad]] of his the [[topologyreal]], extending the previous [[seminarsymbolic]]'s focus on and the [[borromean knotimaginary]], and an exploration of the writings of tying together a [[James Joyceknot]]which constantly threatens to come undone.

Through this ''coincidentia oppositorum'' - bringing together This [[mathematicalknot]] theory and the intricate weave is not offered as a model but as a rigorously non-metaphorical description of the a [[Joyceantopology]] text – [[Lacan]] redefines "before which the imagination fails."<ref>{{L}} 195-6. ''[[psychoanalyticSeminar XXIII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXIII. Le sinthome, 1975-76]] symptom '', published in terms of his final topology of the subject''Ornicar?'', nos 6-11, 1976-7. 9 December 1975.</ref>

Before ====Next Paragraph=====3. Lacan had been an enthusiastic reader of Joyce since his youth (see the references to Joyce in Ec, 25 and S20, 37). 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 appearance subject to cohere. Faced in his childhood by the radical non-function/absence (carence) of [[sinthome]]the Name-of-the-Father, Joyce managed to avoid psychosis by deploying his art as supplÈance, divergent currents as a supplementary cord in [[the subjective knot. Lacan]]focuses on Joyce's thinking lead to different inflections youthful 'epiphanies' (experiences of an almost hallucinatory intensity which were then recorded in enigmatic, fragmentary texts) as instances of 'radical foreclosure', in which 'the concept real forecloses meaning' (seminar of the [[symptom]]16 March 1976).