Difference between revisions of "Talk:Formulae of sexuation"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 +
 +
[[Sexuation]] is not about [[biological]] sex but about the sort of ''[[jouissance]]'' one is able to obtain.<ref>Fink, Bruce. ''Lacan to the Letter: Reading Ecrits Closely''.  p.158.</ref>
 +
 +
 +
 +
The term ''[[jouissance]]'' cannot strictly be translated as "[[pleasure]]".
 +
 +
According to [[Freud]], [[pleasure]] is produced through a decrease in tension.
 +
 +
''[[Jouissance]]'' can be thought of as an increase in tension that is often experienced as painful.
 +
 +
Translating the term as "pleasure" (or "enjoyment") can thus be misleading.
 +
 +
---
 +
 +
[[Biological]] [[men]] and [[women]] can occupy either side of the diagram of [[sexuation]].
 +
 +
That is, there can be [[women]] who are organized according to the [[masculine]] form of ''[[jouissance]]'' and [[men]] who are organized according to the [[feminine]] form of ''[[jouissance]]''.
 +
 +
(This begs the question as to why [[Lacan]] sees fit to refer to these positions as [[masculine]] or [[feminine]] at all.)
 +
 +
 +
----
 +
 +
The [[phallic function]] should be taken to denote [[castration]] or a limitation of ''[[jouissance]]''.
 +
 +
---
 +
 +
[[Lacan]] is clear that the [[phallus]] -- and the [[phallic function]] -- should not be associated with the organ of the [[penis]] (but is a particular [[signifier]] signifying the [[desire]] or [[lack]] in the [[Other]]).
 +
 +
 +
 +
 
{| 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." This x corresponds to the necessary, to "that which does not cease to write itself." In this respect, it is equivalent to the symptom, or Sinthome. It is a lackless real that never ceases to repeat itself qua impossible.
+
| [[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. He emphasizes here that from the start "the question of existence" is "tied to something of which we cannot misrecognize that it is a saying (dire)," yet reminds us that in the myth of Abraham this father is sacrificed in the form of a ram (Gilson 167). Lacan adds that, in Judaic tradition, "as in all human lines that respect themselves, its mythic ancestry (descendance) is animal" (7/1/72). 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. In relation to the impossible, this exception is equivalent to the empty set (7/1/72).
+
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." This all corresponds to the possible, to "that which ceases to write itself."
+
| [[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" (Gilson 167). This "no x" corresponds to the impossible, to "that which does not cease to not write itself."
+
| | [[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." This not-all corresponds to the contingent, to "that which ceases to not write itself."
+
| [[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 53:
 
| [[Image:form6121.jpg]] || The Phallus.
 
| [[Image:form6121.jpg]] || The Phallus.
 
|-
 
|-
−
| [[Image:form6211.jpg]] || The object  a. Pierre Scriabine describes the object  a as both "agalma and refuse (déchet)." It is "what, in the fantasy, sutures the subject's lack in a fallacious complenitude that misrecognizes its division." It "is also what splits the subject, causing it, beyond the fantasy." But still, "as a correlate of the failure of the Other, [the object a] is the logical consistency that completes the inconsistency of the Other" (1).
+
| [[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 later teachings, Lacan situates it as a point at the center of the Borromean knot, as in this diagram. This suggests that the objet a partakes of all three of the orders knotted together by the symptom (the real, the symbolic, and the imaginary) in an extimate relation to sense and to the two jouissances (phallic jouissance and the jouissance of the barred Other).
+
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 61:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| [[Image:form6251.jpg]] || "The woman does not exist."
 
| [[Image:form6251.jpg]] || "The woman does not exist."
−
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}

Latest revision as of 20:46, 4 August 2006


Sexuation is not about biological sex but about the sort of jouissance one is able to obtain.[1]


The term jouissance cannot strictly be translated as "pleasure".

According to Freud, pleasure is produced through a decrease in tension.

Jouissance can be thought of as an increase in tension that is often experienced as painful.

Translating the term as "pleasure" (or "enjoyment") can thus be misleading.

---

Biological men and women can occupy either side of the diagram of sexuation.

That is, there can be women who are organized according to the masculine form of jouissance and men who are organized according to the feminine form of jouissance.

(This begs the question as to why Lacan sees fit to refer to these positions as masculine or feminine at all.)


The phallic function should be taken to denote castration or a limitation of jouissance.

---

Lacan is clear that the phallus -- and the phallic function -- should not be associated with the organ of the penis (but is a particular signifier signifying the desire or lack in the Other).



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.

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.

Form35.jpg "All are subject to the law of castration."
Form2.5.jpg "No x exists which is determined as subject by the saying-no (dire-non) to the phallic function."
Form45.jpg "Not all are subject to the law of castration."
Form6101.jpg The divided subject (subject of lack).
Form6121.jpg The Phallus.
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."

Form6231.jpg The signifier of the barred Other.
Form6121.jpg The Phallus.
Form6251.jpg "The woman does not exist."
  1. ↑ Fink, Bruce. Lacan to the Letter: Reading Ecrits Closely. p.158.
Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Talk:Formulae_of_sexuation&oldid=11446"