Logic of Phantasy 55 Jacques Lacan

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.



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: