Logic of Phantasy 86 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 86
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 19

Seminar 19: Wednesday, May 10, 1967

To reduce the use of the term “masochism”, after that, to being something which is presented as simply an exception, an aberration, to reaching the simplest pleasure, is something likely to generate every abuse, of which the first, of which the first is the following, for which, good God, I do not believe I am using too strong nor inappropriate a term, in picking it out in Bergler’s lines, from one end to the other of this remarkable book, full of observations that are very thorough and altogether instructive, in picking out, nevertheless, this something that I would call an exasperation which is not far from producing a spiteful attitude with respect to the patient: all these people that he calls, that he calls as if this were a great wrong on their part, “injustice collectors”. As if, after all, we were in a world in which justice was such an ordinary state that you really would have to go out of your way to have to complain about something!


These “injustice collectors”, in whom, undoubtedly, he uncovers their most secret operation in the fact of having been rejected. But, after all, to be rejected – as we have it moreover sufficiently in phantasies, but that is something different, I am speaking here about reality –it is perhaps better, from time to time, to be rejected than to be accepted too quickly! The encounter that one may have with one or other person, who asks for nothing better than to adopt you, is not always… the best solution is not always not to escape from it!


Why this partiality which, in a way, implies that it would be in the order, in the nature of things, taking them at their proper angle, to do everything necessary to be admitted. This supposing that “to be admitted” is always to be admitted to a benevolent table.


It is, undoubtedly, not something undisturbing or something that may not appear to us, on occasion, to require to be highlighted , to remark that one or other thing that may happen in the world, and for example, quite simply at the moment, in a certain little district of South West Asia. What is at stake? It is a matter of convincing people that they are quite wrong not to want to be admitted to the benefits of capitalism. They prefer to be rejected! It is starting from there, it seems, that there ought to be posed questions about certain meanings. And specifically the following, for example, which will show us – which will show us no doubt, but today is not the day that I will even take the first steps in this direction – that f Freud wrote somewhere that “anatomy is destiny”, there is perhaps a moment, when people have come back to a sound perception of of what Freud discovered for us, that it will be said – I am not even saying “politics is the unconscious” – but, quite simply, the unconscious is politics!


(7) I mean that what binds men together, or what opposes them, is precisely to be justified by that whose logic we are trying for the moment to articulate.


Because it is for want of this logical articulation that these slippages can be produced. This means that before noting the fact that in order to be rejected, for the “to be rejected” to be essential as a dimension for the neurotic, the following, in any case, is essential: that he offers himself.


As I wrote somewhere: just as much with the neurotic as with what we do ourselves – and with reason, since these are the paths that we are following – this consists precisely, with an offer of trying to make a demand. And such an operation, of course, does not always succeed, either in neurosis or in analytic treatment, especially if it is conducted in a clumsy way. This also, moreover, is of a nature … (for no analytic discourse fails to present to us with the opportunity – in questioning it – the opportunity of seeing what it implies along a certain innocent path, in which it never knows – I mean, this analytic discourse – how far it is going in what it articulates). This allows us to see, in effect, that if the key to the neurotic position depends on this close relation to the demand of the Other, in so far as he tries to make it emerge, it is indeed – as I was saying just now – because he is offering himself. And that, at the same time, we see here the phantastical and therefore obsolete character of this myth – of this myth introduced by analytic sermonising – called oblativity. It is a neurotic’s myth.


But what motivates these needs which are expressed in these biases that are paradoxical and always so badly defined if one refers them purely and simply to the reality gain, collected or not in their train, if one omits this first essential stage, in the light of which alone (I mean, the stage) what emerges from these results in the real can be fudged? It is the logical articulation of the position, the neurotic one in the present case, and, in fact, of all the others. Without a logical articulation which does not bring in any prejudice about what is to be wished for the subject, what do you know about it? What do you know about it, if the need … if the subject needs to get married to this or that person?


And if he has messed up his marriage at one or other turning point, whether it is not for him a piece of good luck?


In other words, what are you interfering with? When the only thing that you have to deal with, is the logical structure of what is involved, Of what is involved specifically, as regards a position like the one in which – to describe it as the wish to be refused (desir d’etre rejete)- you have first of all to know that the subject is pursuing at this level. What is, for the neurotic, the necessity, the gain, perhaps, in being refused? And to pin to it, in addition, the term masochist is simply, on this occasion, to introduce into it a pejorative note, which is immediately followed – as I pointed out earlier – by a directive attitude of the analyst which may on occasion go as far as to be persecutory.


(8) This is why it is altogether necessary to take things up again as I intend to do this year. And while we are at it,to recall that, if I started, this year, from the sexual act in its act structure, it is in relation to the fact that the subject only comes to birth through the relation of a signifier and that this requires of them – I mean of these signifiers – the material.


To perform an act, is to introduce this relation of signifiers through which the conjuncture is consecrated as significant, namely, as an opportunity to think.


People put the accent on mastering the situation, because people imagine that it is the will that presides over the famous fort-da, for example, of the child’s games. The essential dimension is not the active aspect of motricity.


The active aspect of motricity is only deployed, here, in the dimension of the game. It is its logical structure that distinguished this appearance of the fort-da, taken as exemplary and now become a fashion. It is because it is the first signifying thematising – in the form of a phonematic opposition – of a certain situation, that one can qualify it as active, but only in the sense that, henceforth, we will call active only what has, in a sense what I defined it, the structure of the act.

在这个遊戏的向度,动力的主动的因素只是被运作。它的逻辑的结构区别这个「你去我来」的遊戏的外观,现在被当着是典型的例子,大为流行。那是因为它是第一个被意符化的主题结构,以fort 跟 da的语音的对立,处於某种的情境,我们给予主动的特质,但是意义仅限於在行动的结构里,我们所称呼的主动,或我们定义的主动。


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 )

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: