Logic of Phantasy 48 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 48
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11

Lacan Seminar 14:
TheLogic of Fantasy 12
Seminar 12: Wednesday, February 22, 1967

I pronounce the term at the very moment that it is going to be a matter taking our bearings about what is involved in this sublimation.


Freud, even though he in no way developed it, for the same reasons which render the developments that I added to it necessary, Freud affirmed, in accordance with the mode of procedure which is that of his thinking, which consists – as someone else said, Bossuet, first name Jacques-Benigne – which consists in holding firmly to the two ends of the chain. Firstly, sublimation, is zielgehemnt, and, naturally, he does not explain to us what that means! I already tried to mark for you the distinction already inherent in this term of zielgehemmt. I took my references in english, as being more accessible: the difference between the aim and the goal. Say it in French.


It is less clear because we are forced to take words already in use in philosophy. We can, all the same, try to say la fin, it is the weakest word, because it is necessary to re-integrate into it the whole journeying which is what is involved in the aim, the target. There is the same distance between aim and goal as there is in German between Zweck and Ziel. We are not told that Zweckmassigleit, sexual finality, is in any way gehemmt, inhibited, in sublimation. Zielgehemmt, and it is precisely here that the word is well made to detain us … what we gargle with this so called “object” of the blessed genital drive, is precisely what can without any inconvenience be extracted, totally inhibited, absent, in what nevertheless belongs to the sexual drive, without it losing anything of its capacity as Befriedigung, in terms of satisfaction.


You will see in the second of these articles – (there are three texts here, but what I am (7) calling the second, is the second that I named earlier, that of Heinz Hartmann. The first that I named being that of Fenichel, and Alexander is only a reference by Fenichel) – I mean the point designated by Fenichel, the major point of the introduction of the term acting-out in psychoanalytic articulation. Consult the article by Heinz Hartmann on sublimation. It is examplary. It is examplary of what, in our eyes, is not in any way obsolete in the position of the psychoanalyst.


The fact is that the approach to what he is dealing with, taking responsibility for a thinking, always drives him back in some respect to one of these two terms that I will designate in the most temperate way as platitude. And everyone knows that for a long time, I designated as its the most eminent representative, Mr. Fenichel. May he rest in peace! His writings have for us the very great value of being undoubtedly the very scrupulous gathering together of everything that can emerge as holes in experience. All that is lacking at the place of these holes is the necessary question mark. As regards Heinz Hartmann and the fashion in which he sustains – for some fourteen or fifteen pages, if I remember correctly – with an interrogative accent the problem of sublimation, I think that it cannot escape anyone who comes to it with a fresh mind, that such a discourse, the one I am asking you to consult in the text, designating for you where it is, where you can easily and it, is properly speaking a lying discourse.


The whole apparatus of a so-called “energetics”, around which there is proposed to us something which consists precisely in inverting the approach to the problem, by questioning sublimation – in so far as it is first proposed to us as being identical, and not displaced, with respect to something which is, properly, (with the quotation marks that the use of the word drive imposes at this level) all the same: the “sexual drive” – overturning this and questioning in the most punctuated manner what is involved in sublimation, as being linked to what is proposed to us.


Namely, that the functions of the ego – which in the most improper manner has been posited as being autonomous, even as coming from a different source to what is called, in this confused language, an “instinctual” source, as if there had ever been in Freud a question of that! – to know, then, how these completely pure functions of the ego, related to the measure of reality, and providing it, as such, in an essential fashion – re-establishing here then at the heart of analytic thinking, what the whole of analytic thinking rejects – that there is this isolated, direct, autonomous, identifiable relation, a relation of pure thinking to a world that it is supposed to be able to approach, without itself being completely shot through by the function of desire – how can it happen that there can come from what is then elsewhere, the instinctual focus, some reflection or other, some painting or other, some colouring or other, that is called, textually, “the sexualisation of the ego functions”!


(8) Once introduced like this the question becomes literally insoluble, or, in any case, excluded forever from everything that is proposed to the praxis of analysis.


To approach what is involved in sublimation, it is necessary for us to introduce this first term without which (moyennant quoi) it is impossible for us to find our bearings in the problem, which is the one from which I started the last time in defining the act: the act is signifying. It is a signifier which is repeated, even though it happens in a single gesture, for topological reasons which make possible the existence of the double loop created by a single cut. It is the establishment of the subject as such. Namely, that, from a true act, the subject emerges different.


Because of the cut, its structure is modified. And, fourthly, the correlate of misrecognition, or if you wish again, his Reprasentanz in the Vorstellung, to this act, is the Verleugnung. Namely, that the subject never recognises it in its truly inaugural report, even when the subject is, as I might say, capable of having committed this act.


Well then, it is here that it would be well for us to notice the following – which is essential for any comprehension of the role that Freud gives to sexuality in the unconscious – for us to remember something that the tongue already gives us, namely, that people speak about the sexual act.


The sexual act, this could at least suggest to us – something moreover that is obvious – since, once one thinks about it … in any case, you touch on it right away … the fact is that it is obviously not pure and simple copulation.


The act has all the characteristics of the act as I have just recalled them, as we manipulate it, as it has presented itself to us, with its symptomatic sediments and everything that makes it more or less stick and stumble. The sexual act clearly presents itself as a signifier, firstly, and as a signifier which repeats something. Because it is the first thing that was introduced to it in psychoanalysis.


It repeats what? The oedipal scene, of course!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: