Logic of Phantasy 108 Jacques Lacan

Logic of Phantasy 108
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 23

Seminar 23: Wednesday, June 14, 1967

Analysis may be interminable but not a course. It has to have an end. So then, the last of this year will take place next Wednesday. Today’s then is the second last.


This year, I chose not to have any closed seminars. I nevertheless made room, at least, I apologise if I forget it, for at least two people who brought their contribution here.


Perhaps at the beginning of this second last lecture there might be someone among you, someone or several, someone who would line to tell me, perhaps, on what he would like to see me, who knows, putting a greater accents … or give an answer … to begin a stage for the future. This, either in the second last lecture or in the last one. Anyway, I will see if I can answer today. I will strive at least to indicate in what sense I can answer, or indeed I do not know, not answer, the next time. In short, if some of you would not mind, here, immediately, rapidly, giving me, as I might say, some indication of their wishes on this, about what I left them desiring concerning the field that I articulated this year on the logic of the phantasy, well then, I would be very grateful to them.


Well then, who wants the floor? On the other hand we must not delay. Who wants to speak? Good … It’s hot! Good, well then let us speak no more about it, at least for the moment. Those who may have l’esprit de l’escalier can perhaps send me a little word … my address is in the directory in Rue de Lille. I do not think, moreover, you will have any hesitations. As far as I know I am the only one, at least in that place, called Dr. Lacan.


Good. So then let us start again. I am going to continue then at the point that we left things. And since we no longer have much time to complete what can pass as forming a certain circumscribed Field, in what I said this year. I am going, by God, to try to indicate to you the final reference points in as simple a way as I can.


I am going to try to do things simply, of course, which presupposes that I should alert (2) you to what this
simplicity means.


You see clearly that at the end of this logic of the phantasy, a term sufficiently justified by the fact that I am going once more to re-accentuate today. The phantasy, is, in a still narrower way than all the rest of the unconscious, structured like a language.


Since, when all is said and done, the phantasy is a sentence with a grammatical structure, which seems to indicate then, that to articulate the logic of the phantasy, which means, for example, posing a certain number of logical questions which, however simple they may be, have, some of them, not been articulated too often, I am not saying for the first time by me, but perhaps for the first time by me in the analytic field, (the relation of the subject of the statement, for example, to the stating subject.)


Good, well then this does not rule out that, at the end of this first clarification, this indication, this direction given of the sense in which there may develop in the future in a fuller, more articulated, more systematic fashion this logic of the phantasy, I only claim this year to have opened up the furrow. (Its furrow … yes who is uneasy, you? – (Someone in the hall: “I can’t hear) You can’t hear, well now you know!) Not alone does it not rule it out, but it indicates, of course, that somewhere, this logic of the phantasy is attached, is inserted, is suspended on the economy of the phantasy.


That indeed is why at the end of this discourse I introduced the term of jouissance.


I introduced is while underlining, while accentuating that this is a new term, at least in the function that I give it, and that it is not a term that Freud had put in the forefront of theoretical articulation.


And if my teaching, in short, could find its … axis, from the formula of setting off to advantage the doctrine of Freud, this indeed is something which implies, precisely, that I announce in it, that I initiate in it, one or other function, one or other reference point which is in a way circumscribed, outlined, required, implied in it. To set Freud off to advantage, is to do what I always do. First as they say, to render to Freud the things that are Freud’s: which does not exclude some other allegiance! The one, for example, of setting him off to advantage, with respect to what he indicates, with respect to what he involves, in terms of the relation to the truth.


I would say that, if something like that is possible, it is precisely in the measure that I never fail to render to Freud what is Freud’s, and I do not appropriate it to myself. This is a point that, I must say, has its importance, and perhaps I will have the time to come back to it at the end.


It is rather curious to see that for some people, it is by appropriating to themselves, I mean by not rendering to me what they manifestly owe me – anyone can notice it in their formulations – this is not what is important, it is that this failure to render to me, prevents them from immediately taking the next step, which would be nevertheless quite easy in many fields. Instead, alas, of leaving it always to me to make it, even if it entails, subsequently, their despairing that I should have, as it seems, cut the ground from under their feet.


(3) So then, let us approach this function of the phantasy. And first of all to notice, to simply say, as the very start of our question, it is something which leaps to the eye, that it is something closed. That it presents itself to us, in our experience, as a closed meaning – for the subjects who, usually, most commonly, most customarily, support it for us, namely, the neurotics – let it be noted, as Freud does with energy, in the exemplary examination that he made of one of these phantasies. “A child is being beaten” that I already did, if you remember, when I introduced the first schemas of this year (that, of course, I would advise you, when you have assembled what you have been able to take in terms of more or less extensive notes, to which, I hope, you will have recourse anew, in order to grasp the path which has been gone through here) is something closed, therefore is to be situated, and doubly so, in these two terms that I accentuated; one as the correlative of the choice constituted by the I am not thinking, in which the I is constituted by the fact that the I, precisely, comes in reserve, as I might say , as a negative curtailing (ecornage) in the grammatical structure.



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: