Difference between revisions of "Talk:Formulae of sexuation"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; height:200px; text-align:left; line-height:2.0em;" | {| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; height:200px; text-align:left; line-height:2.0em;" | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | [[Image:form1.5.jpg]] || "There exists an x determined by its saying no to the function of castration." | + | | [[Image:form1.5.jpg]] || "There exists an x determined by its saying no to the function of castration." |
− | Lacan equates this at-least-one (au-moins-un) who says no to castration with the mythic father-jouisseur of Totem and Taboo. | + | |
− | But for this exceptional existence, or ex-sistence, to "be something other than a myth," we must conceive of it terms of a structural logic in which it serves as "the inclusive function: . . . this existence plays the role . . . of the complement, or to speak more mathematically, of the edge" to the contradictory universality of the possible | + | Lacan equates this at-least-one (''au-moins-un'') who says no to castration with the mythic father-jouisseur of Totem and Taboo. |
+ | |||
+ | In effect, for this exception to fulfil its totemic function, it must be something non-human; it must not be a speaking subject, which by definition would be constitutively divided--castrated--by the signifier by the signifier--reduced to what is represented by a signifier for another signifier. | ||
+ | |||
+ | But for this exceptional existence, or ex-sistence, to "be something other than a myth," we must conceive of it terms of a structural logic in which it serves as "the inclusive function: . . . this existence plays the role . . . of the complement, or to speak more mathematically, of the edge" to the contradictory universality of the possible. | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | [[Image:form35.jpg]] || "All are subject to the law of castration | + | | [[Image:form35.jpg]] || "All are subject to the law of castration." |
|- | |- | ||
− | | | [[Image:form2.5.jpg]] || "No x exists which is determined as subject by the saying-no (dire-non) to the phallic function | + | | | [[Image:form2.5.jpg]] || "No x exists which is determined as subject by the saying-no (''dire-non'') to the phallic function." |
|- | |- | ||
− | | [[Image:form45.jpg]] || "Not all are subject to the law of castration | + | | [[Image:form45.jpg]] || "Not all are subject to the law of castration." |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:form6101.jpg]] || The divided subject (subject of lack). | | [[Image:form6101.jpg]] || The divided subject (subject of lack). | ||
Line 15: | Line 19: | ||
| [[Image:form6121.jpg]] || The Phallus. | | [[Image:form6121.jpg]] || The Phallus. | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | [[Image:form6211.jpg]] || The object a | + | | [[Image:form6211.jpg]] || The object a. |
− | In his Seminar at Barcelona, Jacques-Alain Miller states, "The object a is only the elaborated part of jouissance, it is the fantasmatic or semantic part of jouissance, the part of jouissance already drawn into the fantasy . . . Object a is a false real." | + | In his Seminar at Barcelona, Jacques-Alain Miller states, "The object a is only the elaborated part of ''jouissance'', it is the fantasmatic or semantic part of ''jouissance'', the part of ''jouissance'' already drawn into the fantasy . . . Object a is a false real." |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:form6231.jpg]] || The signifier of the barred Other. | | [[Image:form6231.jpg]] || The signifier of the barred Other. | ||
Line 23: | Line 27: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:form6251.jpg]] || "The woman does not exist." | | [[Image:form6251.jpg]] || "The woman does not exist." | ||
− | |||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} |