Archive for August, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 59 Jacques Lacan

August 31, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 59
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 14

Seminar 14: Wednesday 8 March 1967

To introduce the consideration of this dimension, I had, in a seminar that is already old – indeed at a time when the seminar was a seminar! – I had to make use of Claudel’s well-known play, more exactly the trilogy, which begins with “The hostage”.


Are the loves of Turelure and of Sygne de Coufontaine an immature union or not?


What is admirable in it, is what, I believe, I amply highlighted in terms of the merits and the incidences of this tragic trilogy, without anyone, I should also say, to my knowledge, among my listeners, having perceived its import. It is not surprising, because I was not careful to put the accent expressly on this precise question and that in general the listeners – from any echo that I had of it – easily avoid this point.


There (6) are two kinds of them.


Those who follow Monsieur Claudel into the religious resonance of the plane where he situates a tragedy which is undoubtedly one of the most radically anti-Christian (in inverted commas) which has even been forged – at least with respect to a Christianity with the proper tone and emotional tenderness. Those who follow it in this atmosphere think that Sygne de Coufontaine, of course, remains intact in all of this. This is not what she, for her part, seems to articulate in the drama! But what matter! People hear through certain screens. It is a curious thing: the listeners who might seem not to have to be inconvenienced by this screen – namely, the non-religioused listeners in the first place – seem, in the same way, not to want to hear anything about what is very precisely involved.

这种反基督教的气氛, 则认为,寇房天在这个戏剧当中,始终保持完整。就她而言,这似乎不是她在戏剧中要表达的情境。但是,那又有什麽关系!人们照常看完某些的场景。耐人寻味的是,听众並不会对於某些的场景,有什麽费解。换句话说,首先是那些没有宗教成见的听众,同样不想要听到任何对於诬蔑宗教的胡言乱语。

In any case, since we do not have other references within our reach (I mean within hand’s reach, here, form the top of a rostrum). I leave the question raised all the same of whether a sexual act consummated in hatred is any less a sexual act with all its implications, I would say.


Raising the question to this level would lead to many approaches, which would not be unfruitful, but that I cannot get into today. Let it be enough for me to note, in the reigning theory concerning the genital stage, another trait, which seems to agree badly with those that people use. Namely, the limited, moderate, temperate in any case, character, as one might say, that the affect (affection) of mourning takes on in it.


The sign of genital maturity being that when this object is realised in the spouse, (since it is a matter, after all, of a formula which tends to adapt itself to morals that are as conformist as one might wish) it is supposed to be normal and a sign of the same maturity that one should be able to mourn this object, within a time-span that we will call decent.


There is here something, first of all, which makes one think that it is supposed to be within the norm of what one can call an affective maturity, that it should be the other who goes first! That makes me think of the story, which was undoubtedly told by somebody psychoanalysed, that Freud talks about somewhere. The gentleman – a Viennese, of course, it is a Viennese story – who says to his wife “If one of us dies, I’ll go to Paris”. It is curious – here I am only making remarks along this crude path of contrasting oppositions – that there should never be evoked in the theory either, anything about – as regards the mature subject – about the mourning that he for his part will leave behind him. This could, moreover, be a characteristic that one might very seriously envisage about the status of the subject! It is probable that this would interest the clientele less! So that, on this point, the same blank.


There are other remarks that this little incident makes me abbreviate because of the (7) time we lost on it.


I would simply say the following. Is not the insistence which is equally put, the burgeoning of developments about what is called the “situation”, or again the “analytic situation”, is this not designed also to allow us to elude the question about what is concerned in the analytic act?


The analytic act, of course, people will say, is interpretation. But since interpretation is undoubtedly, in a growing way, going in the direction of a decline – it is what seems most difficult in the theory to articulate anything about – we will do no more for the moment than take note (prendre acte), as we might put it, of this deficiency.


We will note that, in a fashion which does not fail to involve, I ought to say, some promise – we have all the same something present in the theory, which combines the function of the analyst (I am not saying “the analytic relation”, at which I have very exactly pointed my finger, in order to say that it has, on this occasion, a screening function) – that the analytic function then, is brought closer to something which is of the register of act.


This is not unpromising, as we are going to see, for the following reason. The fact is that, if the analytic act needs indeed to be specified at this point – naturally, for us, the most lively and the most interesting one to determine (which is the point on the lower left of the quadrangle, which concerns the level where it is a matter of the unconscious and the symptom) – the analytic act has, I would say, in a fashion rather in conformity and the symptom) – the analytic act has, I would say, in a fashion rather in conformity with the structure of repression, a sort of inexact position. A representative (if I can express myself in this way) of its deficient representation is given us under the name precisely of acting-out, which is what I have to introduce today.


All here who are analysts, have at least a vague notion that the axis, the centre of this term, is given by the following. That certain acts, having a structure on which all do not necessarily have to agree, but which one can all the same recognize, are likely to be produced, in analysis and in a certain relation of greater or lesser dependency, not with regard to the situation or the analytic relation, but to a precise moment of the intervention of the analyst, to something, then, which ought to have some relation with what I consider as not at all defined, namely, the psychoanalytic act.


(886) 0933481945

Logic of Phantasy 58 Jacques Lacan

August 31, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 58
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 14

Seminar 14: Wednesday 8 March 1967

The whole of analytic theory puts the accent on the mode of sexual relation, declared – rightly or wrongly, in any case under different headings, and under headings to which I have allowed myself to raise some objections on many occasions – to qualify as more or less satisfying such and such a form of what is called the sexual relation.


One can ask oneself if this is not a way of eluding – or even swamping what is, properly speaking, living, decisive, since what it involved here is something which has the same structure of cut as that which belongs to any act – what is properly involved in the sexual act.


Since it is a cut which, as all our experience abundantly demonstrated, does not happen automatically and does not happen automatically and does not give, properly speaking, a result of simple equisy, since all sorts of structural anomalies (which are moreover properly articulated and located, if not conceived of in their true import, in analytic theory) are the result of it. It is quite clear that the fact of eluding what is involved in the relief as such of the act, is undoubtedly something linked to what I will call the temperament, the tempered (4) way in which the theory advances, with the manifest aim of not bringing with it too much scandal.


The worst being, of course, the following (which does not seem for all that to be reduced by this prudence). That the sexual act, henceforth – whatever may be our aspirations towards freedom of thought – that the sexual act, contrary to what may be affirmed in one or other zone and the objective examination which emerges from ethics, well then, it has to be said – whether the theory recognises it or not, puts the accent on it or does not put it, it does not matter to us, – experience, it seems to me, proves superabundantly that from a time which does not date from to day or yesterday, where among the numerous attempts which were made, more or less inherited from extremely complicated experiments, those of what is called “the time of the man of pleasure”, that the way in which there ended up, in certain extravagant formulae of libertarian circles at the beginning of this century, for example, of which there were still some examples surviving, floating, in circles on other terrains, that were much more serious – I mean revolutionary terrains – one was able to see there still being maintained the formula that, after all, in any case, the sexual act should not be taken as having any more importance than that of drinking a glass of water. That was said, for example, in certain zones, certain groups, certain sectors, of Lenin’s entourage.


I remember having read formerly, in German, a very nice little volume, which was called Wege der Liebe, if I still remember the title properly. It was even the beginning, before the war, of something that was very like a paperback. And, on the cover, there was the ravishing little mug of Madame Kollontai (it was the top team) who was, if I remember correctly, the ambassador at Stockholm. It was made up of charming stories on this theme.


Since time has passed, and socialist societies have the structure that you know, it appears clearly that the sexual act has still not passed to the rank of what one satisfies at the snack bar. And, in a word, that the sexual act still carries with it – and will carry for a long time – this sort of bizarre effect of something or other … of discordance, of deficit, indeed of something untidy and which is called gilt. I do not believe that all the writings of the high-flown spirits who surround us and which are entitled things like, “L’univers morbide de la faute”, for example, as if it had been already conjured away! (It was one of my friends who wrote it; I always prefer to quote people that I am fond of). All of this in no way settles the question and does not do so in so far as we, in effect, have to occupy ourselves, probably for a long time yet, with what remains attached to this universe, in terms of the failures, let us say – but failures whose status precisely one must consider (these failures are perhaps essential) – the failures, I am saying, or the non-failures of the structure of the sexual act.

随着时代进步,社会主义的社会拥有你们似乎知道得很清楚的结构,性的行动的地位,依旧没有被提升到跟在速简餐厅所获得的满足相当。总之,性的行动依旧,长久以来,依旧带有这种古怪的不协凋,不满足,确实是下流不堪及金钱交易的勾当。我不相信,充斥在我们四周,所有那些高尚心灵的著作,例如,类似这样的书名:「L’univers morbide de la faute」。好像它的性的行动已经被召唤,不食人间烟火!(那是我的一位朋友所写,我总是喜欢引述我喜爱的人物)。所有这些丝毫没有解决这个问题,事实上,长久以来,我们自己也是全神专注於跟这个世界牵扯不清的问题。以功败垂成的名义,我们不妨这样说,我们确实必须考虑到他们功败垂成的立场,(可能,这种失败非同小可),我是说,这些失败者,或是性的行动的结构的「非失败者」。

As a result of which, I think I have to come back, very briefly certainly, but come back (5) again to what is
inadequate in the definition which may be given to us in a certain register of ampty homily about what is called the genital stage, on what is supposed to endure the ideal structure of its object. It is not completely vain to consult this literature, since in truth, the dimension of tenderness evoked there is undoubtedly something respectable, is not to be contested. But that one should consider it so be something like a structural dimension of its is something with which I do not believe it is vain to enter into some contestation. I mean, first of all, moreover, it is not either absolutely…


– What’s happening? (There is a smell of something scorching; one of the wires of the sound recording machine has begun to burn. The typist leaves her place.)


– What? You see! the moment seems to me to be very appropriate! Let us take things up again. This incident is going to give me the opportunity to settle aid even to abbreviate what I think I have to say on the subject of this famous tenderness (laughter). You can think a little bit about it in this connection.


There is an aspect of this tenderness, and perhaps any tenderness, that could be pinpointed by some formula that would be near enough to the following: the compassion we should have for the impotence to love. To structure that, at the level of the drive as such, is not easy. But, moreover, to illustrate what should be articulated, with regard to what is involved in the sexual act and satisfaction, it would perhaps be good to recall what experience imposes on the psychoanalyst in terms of the ambi…guity – they call it ambivalence … and then again so much use has been made of the word ambivalence that it no longer means absolutely anything – the amcapitaluity of love.


Is a sixual act less a sexual act, an immature act, to be referred by us to the field of an incomplete subject, who has remained attached to the backwardness of some archaic stage, if it is committed – this sexual act – quite simply in hatred?


The case does not seem to interest analytic theory. It is curious. I have nowhere seen this case raised.
(Here there are exclamations. People are saying: “Louder”. Others are saying: “We can’t hear”. “Yes”, others are saying. In reality, at the back of the hall one only gets bits and pieces).


Dr. Lacan: “You can’t hear me? So this thing isn’t working?” (Dr. Lacan makes an allusion to the microphone).

One of the audience: “You have to shout”


Dr. Lacan continues, raising his voice. Bravos!

(886) 0933481945

Logic of Phantasy 57 Jacques Lacan

August 30, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 57
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 14

Seminar 14: Wednesday 8 March 1967

What I am establishing, in short, is a method without which one can say that everything that, in a certain field, remains implicit about what defines these fields, namely, the presence as such of the subject, well then, this method that I am establishing, consists, allows there to be warded off, as I might say, everything that this implication of the subject in this field introduces into it in terms of fallaciousness, of falsity at the foundation. It is something as regards which one sees, in short, by standing back a little, whether this method has indeed all this generalising. And, of course, I did not start from such a general aim. I would even say more: something that I see myself, after the event, that one day it may happen that people will use this method in order to rethink things where they are most interesting, on the political plane, for example. Why not?


It is certain that with enough adaptations (amodiations), some of the schemas that I give will find an application there. It is perhaps even there that they will have most success. Because, on the terrain for which I forged them, the outcome is not sure, given that, perhaps, it is here, it is on this terrain, on this terrain which is that of psychoanalysis, that a certain impasse, which is essentially the one that manifests what I call – and they are not univocal – the fallacies of the subject, finds it easiest to put up a resistance.


In any case, it nevertheless remains that is it here that these concepts will be forged. And, one can even further say, that the whole contingency of the adventure, namely, the very mode off what these concepts will have to confront, namely, for example, analytic theory as it has already been forged, the way in which they have to introduce a correction into this analytic theory and the very dialectic that their introduction into analytic theory involves in terms of difficulty, indeed of resistance – indeed of external contribute to the modes in which I have circumscribed them. I mean that what one can call the resistance of psychoanalysts themselves to what is their own field, is, perhaps, what contributes the most striking testimony to the difficulties that have to be (2) resolved, I mean to their very structure.


Here, then, is why, today, we are coming to a terrain that is still more alive, when what is in question is for me to speak to you about what I situated at the fourth vertex of the quadrangle, that we will describe – I am supposing that my listeners today were all there are my two previous lectures – that we will qualify – this quadrangle – as the one connoted by the moment of repetition. Repetition, I have said, to which there corresponds, as foundational of the subject, the passage a l’acte. I showed you, I insisted on (I will come back to it today because it is necessary to come back to it) the importance of this status of act that the sexual act has. Without defining it at act, it is absolutely impossible to situate, to conceive of, the function that Freud gave to sexuality, as regards the structure of what one should call, with him, satisfaction – subjective satisfaction, Befriedigung – which cannot be conceived of from any other locus than that from which the subject is established as such.


It is the only notion which functions in a way that can give a sense to this Befriedigung.


In order to give to this sexual act structural reference points – outside of which it is impossible for us to conceive of its place in what is involved, namely, Freudian theory – we have been lead to bring into play one of the most exemplary mainsprings (ressorts) of mathematical thinking. Undoubtedly, when I use such means, it is to be clearly understood that it always only reaches something partial in it – partial for whoever only knows about mathematical theory from what I myself have made use of as an instrument.


But of course, the situation may be different for whoever knows the place of such a mainspring, that, no doubt, with some inexperience on my part, I extract, believe me, all the same, not without knowing the ramifications of what I am using in the totality of mathematical theory. And not without having assured myself, that whoever might want to make a more in-depth use of it, will find – in the theory as a whole, at the precise points that I chose to ground such a structure – will find the prolongations that will allow him to give it its proper extension.


Some echo has come back to me that in hearing me speak about the sexual act, by making use, in order to structure the tensions in it, of the ternarity that was provided for me by the proportion of the golden number, someone made this remark through clinched teeth: “The next time I go screwing, I must not forget my slide-rule!”


Undoubtedly, this remark has all the agreeable character that one can attribute to the witticism, but it remains for me to be shaken a little like the curate’s egg when the one responsible for this amusing remark is a psychoanalyst. For in truth, I think very (3) precisely that successful jouissance in bed essentially results, as you have been able to see – I will dot the i’s – from forgetting what may be found on the slide-rule. Why is it so easy to forget? This is what I will once more insist on later. It is even the whole source, in short, of what is satisfying in what, on the other hand, (subjectively) is expressed by castration. But it is quite clear that a psychoanalyst cannot forget that it is in the measure that another act interests him, that we will call, to introduce the term today, the psychoanalytic act, that some recourse to the slide-rule may evidently be required.


The slide-rule, of course, to avoid any misunderstanding, will not consist on this occasion, in using it in order to read on it (we are not yet at that point) what can be read at the meeting place of two little lines. But, because of what it carries in itself in terms of a measure, which is described as nothing other than a logarithm, it provides us in effect with something that is not completely unrelated to the structure that I am evoking.


There it a striking thing in the psychoanalytic act – to name it thus with reference to the whole theory – there is a striking thing which is going to allow us to make a remark, which perhaps was seen by some people in the margins of what I have announced up to now. It is the following. I insisted on the character of act that is involved in the sexual act. One could remark in this connection, that everything that is stated in analytic theory seems destined to efface – for the individuals, suffering or unsatisfied in different ways, that we take responsibility for – the character of act that exists in the fact of the sexual encounter.


(886) 0933481945

Logic of Phantasy 56 Jacques Lacan

August 30, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 56
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 13

This is why there can be somewhere in certain human activities – which remain for us to be examined, according to whether they are a mirage or not – what is called creation, or poetry, for example.


The phallus is indeed then, if you wish, from one point of view, the penis. But it is in so far as it is its lack with respect to jouissance that constitutes the definition of the subjective satisfaction to which there is remitted the reproduction of life.


In fact, in copulation, the subject cannot really possess the body that he embraces. He does not know the limits of possible jouissance, I mean the one that he can have of the body of the Other, as such, because these limits are uncertain. And this is all that is constituted by this beyond that scoptophilia and sadism define. That phallic failure takes on the ever renewed value of a fainting of the being of the subject, is something that is essential to masculine experience, and what makes this jouissance be compared to what is called the return of the little death.


This fainting function – for its part, much more direct, directly experienced, in masculine jouissance – is what gives the male the privilege from which has emerged the illusion of pure subjectivity.


If there is an instant, a somewhere, when man can lose sight of the presence of the (13) third object, it is precisely in this, this fainting moment at which he loses, because it fails, what is not simply his instrument, but, for him as for the woman, the third element of the relation of the couple.


It is starting from there that there were constructed, even before the advent of what we are calling here the status of pure subjectivity, all the illusions of knowledge.


The imagination of the subject of knowledge, whether it is before or after the scientific era, is a male forgery. And male in so far as it has some of the characteristics of impotence, that it denies the minus something around which there is constructed the effect of causation of desire, which takes this minus for a zero. As we have already said, taking the minus for a zero, is proper to the subject and the proper name is here designed to mark its trace.


The rejection of castration marks the delusion of thinking, I mean, the entry of the thinking of the I, as such, into the real, which is properly what constitutes, in our first quadrangle, the status of the I am not thinking, in so far as syntax alone sustains it.


This is what is involved, as regards structure, in what allows there to be edified what Freud designates for us about sexual satisfaction in its relation to the status of the subject.


We will remain there for today, designating for the next time what we now have to advance on the function of acting-out.


(886) 933481945

Logic of Phantasy 55 Jacques Lacan

August 30, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 55
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 13

Seminar 13: Wednesday, March 1, 1967

Of course, common humour or common sense, as you wish, makes of this little difference, the fact that, as they say, some people have one and the others do not. This is not at all what is in question, in fact. For the fact of not having it plays for the woman, as you know, just as essential a role, just as mediating and constitutive a role in love, as for man. Much more, as Freud has underlined, it seems that her effective lack confers some advantages on her. And this is what I am now going to why to articulate for you.
In effect in effect, what do we see if not that, as we said earlier, the extreme ratio of the relation – in other words what reproduces it in its exterior – is going to serve us here in the form of the 1, which gives – which reproduces – the correct proportion, that defined by the small o, outside the relation thus defined as the sexual relation.


In order that one of the partners should posit himself vis-a-vis the other as an equal one, in other words, in order for there to be established the dyad of the couple, we have here, in the relation thus inscribed – in the measure of the mean and extreme ratio – the support, namely, this second 1 which is inscribed on the right and which gives again the proportion with respect to the whole – on condition that there is maintained in it this third term of the small o.


It is here, of course, there resides the fact that we can say that, in the sexual relation, it is in so far as the subject manages to make himself equal to the Other, or to introduce into the Other itself, repetition (the repetition of 1), that it finds itself reproducing, in fact, the initial relation, the one which maintains, always pressing, this third elements, which here is formulated by the small o itself.


In other words, we rediscover here the same process, the one that I previously inscribed, in the form of a bar of division, as making the relation of the subject to the big O begin, in so far as – in the mode in which a division is produced – the O barred is given. That in relation to this big O, it is an S barred which comes to be established, and that the remainder is given there by a small o which is an irreducible element of it.

换句话说,我们在此重新发现这个相同的过程,我先前铭记的过程,以一条区分的横槓,来开始主体与大它者的关系。在彼此的区分产生时,作为大它者的符号的O,被画一横槓代表被禁制。相对於这个大它者O,一个作为主体的符号的S 也被画一横槓,代表一个被禁制的生命主体渐渐被建立。剩余的部分,就由一个小客体提供。这个小客体是生命主体不可被化减的因素。

(11) What does what mean? What it means, is that we are beginning to conceive of how it can happen that such a local organ, as I might say, and in appearance a purely functional one, like the penis, can here come to play a role in which we can glimpse what is involved in the true nature of satisfaction in the sexual relation.


Something, in effect, somewhere, in the sexual relation, can symbolise, as one might say, the elimination of this remainder. It is in so far as it is the organ which is the seat of detumescence that, somewhere, the subject can have the illusion – a deceptive one undoubtedly, but even though it is deceptive it is nonetheless satisfying – that there is no remainder, or at the very least, that there is only a perfectly vanishing remainder.


This, in truth, might be simply of the order of the comic, and certainly belongs to it, because this is, at the same time, what gives its limit to what one can call jouissance, in so far as jouissance is supposed to be at the centre of what is involved in sexual satisfaction.


The whole schema which supports, fantastically, the idea of discharge, in what is involved in instinctual
(pulsionnelles) tensions, is in reality supported by this schema, where one sees there being imposed this limit to jouissance, on the basis of the function of detumescence.


Undoubtedly, this is the most disappointing aspect that one could imagine for a satisfaction, if, in effect, what was involved was purely and simply jouissance. But everyone knows that, if there is something that is present in the sexual relation, it is the ideal of the jouissance of the other, and, moreover, what constitutes its subjective originality. for it is a fact that if we limit ourselves to orgasmic functions, nothing is more precarious than this intersection of jouissances. If there is, indeed, something that experience reveals to us, it is the radical heterogeneity of male jouissance and female jouissance.


This indeed is why there are so many good souls occupied, more or less scrupulously, with verifying the strict simultaneity of their jouissance with that of their partner. I am certainly not going to lay out today the range of the many failures, lures and deceptions that this lends itself to. But the fact is that what is involved is something quite different to this little exercise in erotic acrobatics.


If something – it is well enough known, the place it has taken in a certain psychoanalytic verbiage is also known – if something comes to be founded around the jouissance of the Other, it is in so far as the structure that we have stated today gives rise to the phantom of the gift.


It is because she does not have the phallus that the woman’s gift takes on a privileged value as regards the individual (l’etre) and is called love, which is – as I have defined it – the gift of what one does not have.


(12) In a love relationship, the woman finds a jouissance that is, as one might say, of the order precisely of causa sui, in so far as, in effect, what she gives in the form of what she does not have, is also the cause of her desire.


She becomes what she creates, in a purely imaginary fashion, and, precisely, what makes her an object – in so far as in the erotic mirage she can be the phallus – to be it and at the same time not be it. What she gives by not having it, becomes, I have just told you, the cause of her desire. It is only, one can say, because of this, that the woman completes genital union in a satisfying fashion.


But, of course, in the measure that, having provided the object that she does not have, she does not disappear into this object. I mean that this object only disappears – leaving her to the satisfaction of her essential jouissance – through the intermediary of masculine castration. So that, in short, she, for her part, loses nothing in it, since she only puts into it what she does not have and that, literally, she creates it.
And this indeed is why it is always through identification to the woman that sublimation produces the appearance of a creation. It is always in the mode of a genesis, which is certainly obscure – before I expose its lineaments before you here – but very strictly linked to the gift of feminine love, in so far as it creates this vanishing object – and what is more, in so far as she lacks it – which is the all powerful phallus.



Logic of Phantasy 54 Jacques Lacan

August 29, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 54
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 13

Seminar 13: Wednesday, March 1, 1967

There must also, there must also be something in this which is very closely linked – not, I must say, in the most convenient fashion – with what one can call the religion of the Word (Verbe), since, undoubtedly, after the very surprising hopes about liberation from the Law (which corresponds to the Pauline generation in the Church), it seems that in what followed, many dogmatic statements were weakened. Is the name of what? Of production of course, the production of souls! In the name of the production of souls, this announcement of the passage of humanity to beatitude as being very near, suffered, it seems to me, a certain postponement.


But you must not believe that the problem is limited to the religious sphere. Another announcement having been made about the liberation of man, it seems that the production of proletarians must have played some role, in the precise forms socialist societies took on, starting from a certain idea of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man. As regards this production, it does not seem that a much clearer measure has been reached, and as regards what is produced – just as the Christian field, in the name of the production of souls, has continued to allow there to appear in the world beings of whom the least that one can say is that their soul-like quality is quite mixed – in the same way in the name of the production of proletarians, it does not seem that (9) there is coming to light anything other than this something respectable certainly, but which has its limits, and that one could call, the production of managers (cadres). Therefore, this question of production and of the status of the subject qua
product, is now presentified to us at the level of something which is indeed the first presentification of the Other, in so far as it is the mother.


We know the value of the unifying function of this presence of the mother. We know it so well that the whole of analytic theory (and practice) has literally tipped over towards it and has completely succumbed to its fascinating value. The principle, from the origin, and this going (you are able to understand it because you saw it being supported in a debate which ended our last year), the whole analytic situation was conceived of as reproducing, ideally, I mean as being founded on the ideal of this unit of fusion (or this foundational unification if you wish), which is supposed to have united for nine months – as I recalled the last time – the child and the mother. Undoubtedly …


-A female voice: We can’t hear you, sir.

-Dr. Lacan: What?

-The same voice: It’s very hard to hear you.

-Dr. Lacan: It’s very hard to hear me. I’m terribly sorry that all of this is working so badly, but I am very grateful to you for telling me. I’m going to try to speak more loudly. Thank you.


-The voice: It’s the microphone.

-Dr. Lacan: It isn’t working at all today, huh. Good …

… what unites then the child and the mother. It is precisely not to make this union of the infant and the mother …


(whatever way we qualify it, whether we make of it of not the function of primary narcissism, or simply the elective locus of frustration and of gratification) – this is precisely what is at stake, namely, not to repudiate this register, but to put it back in its correct place, that our theoretical efforts are about. It is in so far as there is somewhere – and I am saying at the level of sexual confrontation – this first affirmation of the unity of the couple, as constituted by what the religious statement has formulated as “one flesh”. What a mockery!


Who can affirm in any way whatsoever that, in what is called a genital embrace, the man and the woman form one flesh? Unless the religious statement here has recourse to what is put by analytic investigation, to what,n in sexual union is represented by the maternal pole. I repeat: this maternal pole – since, in the oedipal myth, it seems to be confused with, to give purely and simply the partner of the little male – has in reality nothing to do with the male-female opposition.


Because the girl just as much as the boy has to deal with this maternal locus of unity, as representing for her what she is confronted with at the moment of approaching what is involved in sexual union.


(10) For the boy as for the girl what he is as product, as small o, has to be confronted with the unity established by the idea of the union of the child with the mother and it is in this confrontation that there emerges this 1-o, which is going to bring us this third element, in so far as it also functions as the sign of a lack, or, if you wish again, to use the humorous term, of the little difference, of the little difference which comes to play the capital role in what is at stake in terms of sexual union in so far as it involves the subject.



Logic of Phantasy 53 Jacques Lacan

August 29, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 53
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 13

Seminar 13: Wednesday, March 1, 1967

(6) Such is this perfectly fixed relation, which has extremely important mathematical properties that I have neither the leisure nor the intention of developing for you today. You should know simply that its appearance in Greek mathematics coincides with the decisive step of putting order on what is involved in the commensurable and the incommensurable.


In effect, this relation is incommensurable. It is, in the search for the mode in which there can be defined – in the way in which there overlap – the succession of points given by the staggered series of two units of measure, incommensurable to one another. Namely, what is most difficult to imagine: the way in which they become confused, if they are incommensurable. What is proper to the commensurable, is that there is always a point where the two measures will come together on the same footing. Two commensurable values will always end up at a certain multiple, different for the one and for the other, constituting the same magnitude. Two incommensurable values, never. But how do they interfere with one another? It is along the line of this research that there was defined this procedure which consists in reducing (rabattre) the smaller into the field of the larger and asking oneself what happens – from the point of view of measure – to the remainder.


For the remainder, which is here, which is obviously 1-o, we will proceed in the same way. We will reduce it within the larger one. And so on to infinity, I mean, without ever being able to arrive at the end of this process. It is in this that there consists precisely the incommensurability of a relation that is nevertheless so simple.


Of all the incommensurables, this one is the one that, as I might say, always leaves the greatest separation in the intervals that define the rationality of the commensurable. A simple indication that I cannot give any further commentary on here.


In any case, you see that it is a matter, any way, of something which, in this order of the incommensurable, is specified by every special accentuation, as well as a purity of relation.


(7) To my great regret – because I think that all the guts of occultism are going to tremble on this occasion – I am indeed obliged, for the sake of honesty, to say that this small o relation is what is called the golden number. After which, naturally, there is going vibrate, in the inner depths of your cultural acquisitions – especially as regards aesthetics – the evocation of anything you like: cathedrals … Albert Durer … alchemical crucibles and all the other similar fiddle faddles!


I hope nevertheless that the seriousness with which I introduced the strictly mathematical character of the matter – and very specifically its problematic nature, which in no way gives the idea of a measure that is easy to conceive of – made you sense that it is something different that is at stake.


Let us see now some of the remarkable properties of this small o. I wrote them in black on the left. You can see already that the fact that 1+o is equal to the inverse of o, namely, to 1/o, was already sufficiently guaranteed in the premises given by the definition of this relation. Because the notion that it consists in the relation of the smaller to the greater, in so far as equal to that of the greater to the sum, already gives us this formula, which is the same as this fundamental one: o = 1/(1+o). Starting from this, it is extremely easy to see other equalities, whose obsolete and, in truth, for us, momentarily important character is marked by the fact that I wrote in red the following equalities.


The only important thing to note being that the one minus small o which it here (1), can be equal to o squared, which is very easy to prove. And, on the other hand, that two plus small o which is here, and you can see – from the simple consideration of one plus small o over one minus o – how this two minus small o can be easily deduced. Which represents the following. Namely, what happens, when instead of involuting onto itself the reduction of segments, one develops them on the contrary towards the outside. Namely, that the one over 2 plus small o – namely, what corresponded earlier to our external segment in the anharmonic relation (it is equal to one, being obtained by the outside development of the one that the greater length represents) – the one over two o has the same value as this initial value that we started from, namely, small o, namely, one over one plus o. (cf. Appendix).


Such are the properties of the mean and extreme ratio, in so far as they are going perhaps to allow us to
comprehend something about what is involved in genital satisfaction.


As I told you, small o is one of the ordinary (quelconque) terms of this genital relation.


(8) I am saying, one of the ordinary terms, whatever may be its sex. The girl, like the boy, in the sexual relation – the experience of the subjective relation in so far as analysis defines it as oedipal – the girl like the boy enters it first of all as a child. In other words, as already representing the product – and I am not giving this term at random, we will have to take it up again subsequently – in so far as it allows to situate, as different from what is called creation, what, in our day, circulates as you know, everywhere and even without rhyme or reason, under the name of production.


This relation of the subject as such to what is involved in production should be defined, and is indeed the most imminent, the most current problem proposed to thinking. Whatever may be advanced, I am saying, in a dialectic of the subject where it is not seen how the subject itself can be taken as a production, is entirely without value for us. Which does not mean that it is easy to guarantee, starting from this root, what is involved in production.


It is so little easy to guarantee, that if there is anything an unprepared mind might well be astonished at, it is the remarkable silence – the silence of “Conrard” – that psychoanalysis maintains on this delicate question, which is nevertheless … I ought to say which plays its part, however little, in our journalistic, political, domestic, daily, and anything you wish, even commercial life, and which it called birth control. We have yet to see an analyst saying what he thinks about it! It is all the same curious, in a theory that claims to have something to say about sexual satisfaction!



Logic of Phantasy 52 Jacques Lacan

August 29, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 52
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 13

Seminar 13: Wednesday, March 1, 1967

And this, to the point that all the other orders of satisfaction (those that we have just enumerated as present in effect in the Freudian evocation) only come to take on their meaning when put into a certain dependency – which I would defy anyone to define, to render conceivable, otherwise than by formulating it in terms of structure – into a dependency, I was saying, let us say – crudely – that is symbolic with respect to sexual satisfaction.


These are the terms in which I am proposing to you the problem that I am taking up again today and which consists in trying to give you the signifying articulation of what is involved in the repetition implied in the sexual act. Is it truly what I have said – what the tongue promotes for us and what undoubtedly our experience does not invalidate – namely, an act, after having insisted on what is involved in the act, in itself, in terms of conditioning, first of all, by the repetition which is internal to it.


As regards the sexual act I would go further, at least I thought I had to go further in order to grasp its import. The repetition that it implies, involves – at least if we follow Freud’s indication – an element of measure and of harmony which is, undoubtedly, what the directive function given to it by Freud evokes, but which undoubtedly is what is to be specified by us.


For if there is something that is produced, that is promoted, by any of the analytic formulations, it is that in no case can this harmony be conceived of as being of the order of the complementary, namely, as the union of male and female, however simply (4) the populace pictures it, in the style of the union of the key and the lock, or in anything whatsoever which is presented in these habitual modes of gamic symbols. Everything indicates to us – and it seems that I only have to make something of the fundamental function of this third element which turns around the phallus and castration – everything indicates to us that the mode of measure and proportion implied in the sexual act is of a completely different structure and, to say the word, is more complex.


This is what, the last time, in leaving you, I had begun to formulate, in evoking – since it is a matter of harmony – the relation described as an harmonic which ensures that on a simple line that has been drawn, a segment can be divided in two ways: – by a point which is internal to it – a point c between a and b giving some relation or other, for example, 1/2.


– Another point d, outside, can realise in the segments determined between it – this point d, for example – with the points a and b of the initial segment, the same proportion, 1/2.

另外一种方法是,在a点跟b点之间的外面,另外画个d 点,跟原先的长度,成相同的比率。这样它也能够表现出二分之一的关系。

Already, this had appeared more suitable to us to guarantee what is involved, according to all our experience.


Namely, the relation of one term to another term that is presented to us as a place of unity, the unity, I mean, of the couple. That it is in relation to the idea of the couple, where it is found – I mean effectively, in the subjective register – that the subject has to situate himself, in a proportion that he may find has to be established by introducing an external mediation to the confrontation that he constitutes – as subject – to the idea of the couple.


This is only a first approximation and, in a way, the simple schema that allows us to designate what it is a matter of guaranteeing. Namely, the function of this third element that we see appearing at every turn of what one could call the subjective field, in the sexual relation, whether it is a matter (we pointed it out the last time) of what, subjectively, undoubtedly, appears there in the most distant fashion, namely, its always possible organic product, whether it is considered to be desirable or not. Whether it is this element, at first sight so different, so opposed, and, nevertheless, immediately connected to it by analytic experience, namely, this requirement of the phallus, which appears so internal, in our experience, to the sexual relation as it is subjectively lived. Is not the child phallus equivalence something from which we can, perhaps, attempt to designate the relevance in some synchrony that we ought to discover in it and which, of course, does not mean simultaneity.


(5) What is more, does this third element not have some relation with what we have designated as the division of the Other itself, the S (O-barred)?


It is in order to lead you along this path, that today I am introducing the relation which is structured in a very different order to that of the simple harmonic approach which the end of my last discourse designated. Namely, what constitutes the true mean and extreme ratio, which is not simply the relation of one segment to another, in so far as it can be defined in two ways, in a way that is internal or external to their conjunction, but the relation which posits, at the start, the equality of the relation of the smaller to the larger – the equality, I am saying, of this relation – which is not nothing as regards the establishment of a structure (for I remind you that this anharmonic relation was something we already had to evoke last year as fundamental to any structure described as projective), but let us leave it now to attach ourselves to the following, which makes of the relation of the mean and extreme ratio, not any relation whatsoever – however directive, I repeat, this may appear, eventually, in the manifestation of projective constants – but a perfectly determined and unique relation, I mean numerically speaking.


I put on the board a figure that allow us to give its support to what I am stating here.


Here on the right are the segments in question. the first that I called small o, which for us is going to be the only element that we will be content with to build up everything that is going to be involved in this relation of measure or of proportion. On the single condition of giving to its correspondent, that you see here, from this point to this point (I do not want to give names of letters to these points in order not to risk confusion, in order not to make your ears spin when they are stated) I designate from here (1) to here (2), we have the value.


On condition of giving this value 1 to this segment, we can be content, in what we are dealing with, namely, the relation described as that of the mean and extreme ratio, to give it purely and simply the value o, which means, on this occasion o/1. We have posited that the relation o/1 is the same as the relation of 1/1+o.



Logic of Phantasy 51 Jacques Lacan

August 27, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 51
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 13

Seminar 13: Wednesday, March 1, 1967

I read last evening, somewhere, perhaps some of you too may have encountered it, this singular title: “Know Freud before translating him” … an enormity! As was said by a gentleman whom I do not claim to resemble because I do not go around like him with a stick, even though sometimes with a hat: “henaurme”!


In any case, it is clear that it seems to me that to try to translate him, is a path that is certainly indispensable as a preliminary to any pretension of knowing him.


That a psychoanalyst should claim to know psychoanalysis may be acceptable, but to know Freud before
translating him, invincibly suggests this stupidity of knowing him before having read him. This, of course,
supposes all the necessary enlarging of the notion of translation. For undoubtedly, what is striking, is that I do not know if we can ever pot forward something, which resembles this pretension of knowing Freud. Measure clearly for yourselves what it means – in the perspective that the thinking of Freud, once it has reached the end of its development, offers us – measure clearly for yourselves what it means to have proposed to us the model of subjective satisfaction in sexual union.


Was not the experience – the experience from which Freud himself started – very precisely that it was the locus of subjective dissatisfaction? And has the situation improved for us?


Frankly, in the social context which is dominated by the function of the employment of the individual – the
employment, whether it is regulated against the measure of his subsistence purely and simply, or that of
productivity – what margin in this context, is there left to what might be the proper time for a culture of love?


And does not everything testify to us that this is indeed the reality most excluded from our subjective community?


No doubt this is, not what decided Freud to articulate this function of satisfaction as a (2) truth but, that seemed to him to be protected from this risk, that he avowed to Jung, of seeing a profound theory of the psyche finding itself in the rut of what he himself called “the black tide of mud of occultism”.


It is indeed because with sexuality – which, precisely, throughout the centuries, had presided over what seems to us the follies, the delusions of Gnosis, of the copulation of the wise man and sophia (and along what path!) – it is indeed because in our century and under the reign of the subject, there was no risk that sexuality could presume to be some kind of model for knowledge, that, no doubt, he began this tune of the leader of the game, so well illustrated by this tale of Grimm that he loved, of the Pied Piper, drawing behind him this audience which, one can well say, as regards the paths of any kind of wisdom, represented the dregs of humanity.

这确实是因为,自古以来,我们的愚昧行径,莫不与性扯上关系,例如,诺斯教徒对於爱神的幻觉,智者索罗门王跟索菲亚的迷恋。的确,在目前这个世纪,在生命的主体的统治之下,性的知识能够假定不会再有这样的危机。无可置疑地,人能够开始吹起笛声, 充当性遊戏的主导者。如同他所喜爱的格林童话的故事,吹笛人引诱儿童般,后面跟随一大票听众。这些听众,对於任何种类的智慧的途径,代表的是人类的渣滓,我们不妨这样说。

For undoubtedly, in what I called earlier the line that he traces out for us, and where one must start from the end, namely, the formula of repetition, it is necessary to measure what separates the panta rhei of the ancient thinker, when he tells us that nothing ever repasses in its own trace – that one never bathes in the same river – and what that signifies in terms of a profound tearing apart of a thinking, that can only grasp time in this something which only goes towards the indeterminate, at the price of a constant rupture with absence.


What is added to it by introducing here the function of repetition?


Well then, undoubtedly, nothing much more satisfying, than to always, incessantly, renew, a certain number of circuits.


The pleasure principle, undoubtedly, does not guide towards anything, and least of all towards the re-grasping of some object or other.

What can the pure and simple notion of discharge account for, in so far as it is supposed to take its model from the established circuit of the sensorium, from something, moreover, rather vaguely defined as being the motor, the stimulus-response circuit, as they say? Who does not see that by keeping to this the sensorium can only be the guide of what ensures, in effect, at the simplest level, that when the frog’s leg is stimulated, it is pulled back. It does not lead to grasping anything in the world, but to fleeting what injures it.


What is it that the constant defined in the nervous system guarantees by the pleasure principle? The equality of stimulation, isostime, I would say – to imitate the isobar or the isotherm that I spoke about the other day – or isorespe, isoresponse. It is difficult to ground anything whatsoever on the isostime, for the isostime is no longer in any way a stime. The isorespe, the “groping” for the equality of resistance, here is what can define this isobar that the pleasure principle will lead the organism to avoid in the world. Nothing in all of that, in any case, pushes towards the seeking, to the grasping, (3) to the constitution of an object.


The problem of the object as such is left intact by this whole organic conception of a homeostatic system. It is very surprising that its flaw has not been marked up to now.


Freud, here, undoubtedly, has the merit of noting that the seeking of an object is something which is conceivable only by introducing the dimension of satisfaction.


Here we again come up against the strangeness of the fact that while they are so many organic models of satisfaction – beginning with digestive repletion and also some of the other needs that he evokes, but in a different register – for it is remarkable that it is precisely in so far as these schemas in which satisfaction is defined as untransformed by the subjective agency, (oral satisfaction is something that can put the subject to sleep, at the limit, but undoubtedly it is conceivable that this sleep may be the subjective sign of satisfaction) – how infinitely more problematic it is to highlight that the true order of subjective satisfaction is to be sought in the sexual act, which is precisely the point in which it proves to be the most torn apart.



Logic of Phantasy 50 Jacques Lacan

August 26, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 50
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 12

Such is the mean and extreme ratio of what links the agent to what is patient and receptacle in the sexual act. I mean, in so far as it is an act, in other words, in so far as it has a relation with the existence of the subject.


The One of the unit of the couple is a thought determined at the level of one of the terms of the real couple. What does that mean? It is that it is necessary that something should emerge, subjectively, from this repetition, which re-establishes the ratio – the mean ratio as I have just defined it for you – at the level of this real couple. In other words that something should appear, which – as in this fundamental signifying manipulation that the harmonic relationship is – is manifested as the following: this magnitude (let us call it small c), as compared to the sum of the two others, has the same value as the smaller has compared to the larger.


But that is not all! It has this import, in so far as this value – of the smaller as compared to the larger – is the same value as that of the larger with respect to the sum of the first two. In other words, that o over capital O = capital O over (o plus capital O) equals what? This other value that I produced here and which has a name, which has a name, which is called something other that minus phi in which there is designated castration, in so far as its designates the fundamental value. I am writing it out again a little further: equals minus phi over (o plus capital O minus phi). Namely, the significant relation of the phallic function qua essential lack of the junction of the sexual relation with its subjective realisation; the designation in the very fundamental signifiers of the sexual act of this: that, although everywhere summoned, but slipping away, the shadow of the unit hovers over the couple, there appears nevertheless, necessarily, the mark – this by reason of its very introduction into subjective functioning –
the mark of something which ought to represent in it a fundamental lack.

但是那未必都是事实!它拥有意义,跟较大者比较起来,较小者的价值是同样的价值,如同较大者,跟前面的两个的数目,是同样的价值。换句话说,大写字母的O之上的O,等於大写字母的O(O 加大写字母O) 在什麽之上?我在此产生的另外一个价值,它有个名字,被称之为「负一」,有一个被指明的阉割,这是它指明的基本的价值。我现在重新再写清楚:等於「负一」在上面(在O加大写字母O 减一)。换句话说,阳具功用的重大关系,作为跟生命主体的实现自我的性的行动,在关键时刻,是基本上的欠缺。性的行动的基本的意符,指明的是:它虽然处处被召唤,但是又溜走消失。这个单位的陰影盤旋在这对夫妻的头上,必然会出现这个标记。由於它介绍进入生命主体的功用,这个东西的标记,应该代表它里面的一个基本的欠缺。

This is called the function of castration qua signifying.


(12) In so far as man is only introduced into the function of the couple by way of a relationship which is not immediately inscribed in sexual union and which is only represented in it in this same exterior where you see there being outlined what is called, for that very reason, “the extreme ratio”.


The relation that the predominance of the phallic symbol has, with respect to sexual union qua act, is the one which gives both the measure of the relation of the agent to the patient, and the measure – which is the same – of the thought of the couple, as it is in the patient, to what the real couple is. It is very precisely by being able to reproduce exactly the same type of repetition, that everything that is of the
order of sublimation – and I would prefer not to be forced here to evoke it specifically in the form of what is called “artistic creation”, but, because it is necessary, I am bringing it in – it is precisely in the measure that something, or some object, can come to take the place that the minus phi takes in the sexual act as such, that sublimation can subsist, giving exactly the same order of Befriedigung given in the sexual act and as regards which you see the following: that it very precisely depends on the fact that what is purely and simply within the couple is not satisfying.


This is so true that this kind of crude homily, that has been introduced into the theory under the name of “genital maturation”, is only proposed as what? As very obviously, in its very text, (I mean in whoever tries to state it) as a kind of hold-all, refuse dump, where nothing really indicates what is enough to connect the fact, firstly, of a copulation (a successful one, they add on, but what does that mean?) and of these elements that are qualified as “tenderness”, “recognition of the object”. What object, I ask you? Is it so clear that the object is there, when already we are told that behind any object whatsoever, there is profiled the Other, which is the object which provided a shelter for the nine month interval between the union of the chromosomes and the coming to birth?


I know well that it is here that there takes refuge all the obscurantism which attaches itself madly to analytic proof.


But it is not a reason either for us not to denounce it, if the fact of denouncing it allows us to advance more strictly into a logic, as regards which you will see, the next time, how it is concentrated at the level of the analytic act itself.


For if there is something interesting in this representation in a quadrangle, it is that it allows us to establish also certain proportions. If the passage a l’acte fulfils certain functions with respect to repetition, it is at least suggested by this arrangement, that it ought to be the same as what separates sublimation from acting-out. And in the other sense, that sublimation with respect to the passage a l’acte ought to have something in (13) common in what separates repetition from acting-out.


Undoubtedly, there is here a much bigger gap, the one which, undoubtedly, makes of the analytic act, as we are trying to grasp it in what we will say the next time, something which also deserves to be defined as act.