Archive for December, 2010

Anxiety 101 Jacques Lacan

December 31, 2010

Anxiety 101

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963
Seminar 14: Wednesday 13 March 1963

This is what, without at all having made you penetrate for all that into the structure – as we will be led to do – of
masochistic functioning, what I wanted simply to stress the last time, because what the light which illuminates the details of the table in a completely new way, is to remind you of what is given apparently immediately – this is why it is not seen in the masochist’s perspective, in the most banal approach to these perspectives – that the masochist is aiming at the jouissance of the Other; and what I stressed the last time as another term of that for which I intend to put forward everything that will allow there to be undone, as one might say, the manoeuvre which is hidden by this idea, is that what he is aiming at, what he wants, this of course being the eventual term of our research, of which he can only be fully justified by a verification of the moments which prove that it is the final term, the last term is what he is aiming at, the anxiety of the Other.


(10) I said other things that I intend to remind you of today, it is the essential of what is irreducible in it that you must
retain, at least until you can make your judgement on what I have organised around it.


On the side of sadism, with an entirely analogous remark, namely that the first term is elided and that it has nevertheless the same obviousness as on the side of masochism, what is aimed at in sadism in all its forms, at all its levels, is something which also promotes the function of the Other, and that precisely there what is open to view is that what is sought is the anxiety of the Other, jujt as in masochism, what is masked by that, is, not at all, by an inverse process of reversal, the jouissance of the Other – sadism is not the reverse of masochism for the simple reason that they are not a reversible couple, the structure is more complex, I insist on it, even though today, I am only isolating two terms in each; to illustrate if you wish what I mean, I would say that, as you might assume after several of my essential schemas, they are functions with four terms, they are if you wish squared functions, and that the passage from one to the other is carried out by a rotation of a quarter of a turn and not by any symmetry or inversion.


You do not see this appearing at the level that I am now
designating for you. But what I pointed out to you the last time is hidden behind this search for the anxiety of the Other, is in sadism the search for the object o. It is to this that I brought as a reference, an expressive term taken from Sadean phantasies “the skin of the cunt”. I will not recall for you now this text from Sade’s work.


We find ourselves therefore between sadism and masochism in the presence of that which at the second level, at the level hidden from the perspective of each one of these two tendencies, is presented as the alternation, in reality the reciprocal
occultation of anxiety in the first case, of the object o in the other (sadism).


I will end with a brief reminder which returns to what I already
said precisely about this o, this object, namely the emphasizing of what I could call, essentially, the manifest character that we know well, even though we do not perceive its importance, the manifest character with which is marked what? The mode in which there enters this anatomy which Freud is wrong to say without any further precision, is destiny.


(11) It is the conjunction between a certain anatomy, the one
that I tried to characterise for you the last time at the level
of the object o by the existence of what I called the caduques,
namely precisely what exists at only a certain level, the mammal level, among the organisms, the conjunction between the caduques and something which is effectively destiny, namely the agalma, through which jouissance has to confront itself with a signifier, namely the mainspring of the limitation to which in the case of man the destiny of desire is submitted, namely this encounter with the object in a certain function, in so far as this function localises him, precipitates him onto this level which I called that of the existence of caduques and of everything which can serve as caduques, a term which will help us among others to explore better, I mean to hope to give an exhaustive catalogue
and limit of the frontiers, the moments of cutting, where anxiety can be expected, and to confirm that it is indeed there that it emerges.

這是某種解剖跟顯而易見是命運的東西之間的連接。上一次,我設法跟你們表達這個解剖的特徵,根據小客體的層次,根據我所謂的「脫落」,換句話說,只存在於某個層次上,哺乳動物的層次,在有機體當中。這個「脫落」跟某件顯而易見是命運的東西之間的連接,換句話說,命運之神,透過這個命運之神,歡爽必須跟一個意符正面遭遇。也就是說,這個限制的主要動力。就人類而言,欲望的命運被提供出來接受這個限制 換句話說,跟客體的這個正面遭遇,以某種的功用。 這個功用會會定位出他的位置,使他突然掉入這個層次,我稱為是「脫落」的存在的層次。這是一個術語,在許多術語當中,幫助我們從事更好的探索。

Then, I ended, I remind you, by one of the best known clinical
examples with a reminder of the close connection, to which we will have to return, and which because of this fact is much less accidental than is believed, the conjunction, I am saying, between orgasm and anxiety in so far as both the one and the
other together can be defined by an exemplary situation, the one that I defined in the form of a certain expectation of the other – and of an expectation which is not an indifferent one – the one that, in the shape of a blank page or not, the candidate must hand up at a particular moment is an absolutely gripping example of what can be for him for an instant the o.



Anxiety 100 Jacques Lacan

December 31, 2010

Anxiety 100

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963
Seminar 14: Wednesday 13 March 1963

Did it not strike you that I spoke to you about the breast or the eyes, making these objects o start from Zurbaran, from Lucy and Agatha, where they present themselves under what I might call a (8) positive form? These breasts and these eyes that I showed you there on the plate on which the two worthy saints carry them, or even on the bitter soil where Oedipus’ feet carry him, appear here with a sign different from the one I showed you subsequently in the phallus as specified by the fact that at a certain level of the animal order jouissance coincides with detumescence, pointing out to you that there is nothing necessary about this, necessary nor linked to the Wesenheit, the essence of the organism, in the Goldsteinien sense of the word.


At the level of o, it is because the phallus, the phallus in so far as it is, in copulation, not alone the instrument of desire, but an instrument functioning in a certain fashion, at a certain animal level, it is for this reason that it presents itself in the position o with a (-) sign.


This is essential to articulate clearly, to differentiate,
something that is important here, from castration anxiety, from what functions in the subject at the end of an analysis when what Freud designates as a castration threat is maintained there.


If there is something which allows us to put our finger on the fact that this is a point that can be gone beyond, that it is absolutely not necessary that the subject remains suspended when he is a male at the castration threat, suspended, when she is of the other sex at Penisneid, it is precisely this distinction.


To know how we could go beyond this limiting point, what must be known, this is why an analysis guided in a certain direction culminates at this impasse through which the negative which marks the physiological functioning of copulation in the human being finds itself promoted to the level of the subject in the shape of an irreducible lack. This is what will be found again subsequently as a question, as a direction of our path, and I think it is important to have marked it here.


What I subsequently contributed during our last meeting, is the articulation of two very important points concerning sadism and masochism, the essential of which I resume here for you, the essential that it is altogether capital to maintain, to sustain, in so far as by holding onto it, you can give their full meaning to the very elaborated things that are said in the current state of things about what is involved, namely sadism and masochism.


What is to be retained in what I enounced there concerns at first masochism, as regards which you can see that, if the authors have really labored a great deal to the point of taking very far, so (9) far that something I read recently here, was able to surprise me myself, I will mention later an author who took things to my surprise, I must say to my joy also, as close as possible to the point that I will attempt this year, from our own angle here, to lead to you as regards masochism.


The fact remains that this very article, whose title I will give you later, remains, like all the others, strictly incomprehensible for the simple reason that already at the beginning there is in a way elided, because it is there indeed absolutely under his nose, as one might say, from the evidence, something that I am going to enunciate in a moment. People try, people manage to avoid putting the accent on that which, at first approach, involves, collides most with our
finalism, namely the intervention of the function of pain.


This, people have managed to understand, is not the essential thing.


Also people have succeeded, thank God, in an experience like that of analysis, in seeing that the Other is aimed at, that in the transference one can perceive that these masochistic manoeuvres are situated at a level which are not without a relationship to the Other.


Naturally many other authors take advantage of it to go no
further, to jump on an insight whose superficial character can be seen at a glance, however handy it has shown itself to be in certain cases. For having only arrived at this level, one cannot say that the function of narcissism, which an author who is not without a certain talent for presentation, Ludwig
Heidelberg, has emphasised, is something that can suffice for us.



Anxiety 99 Jacques Lacan

December 30, 2010

Anxiety 99

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963
Seminar 14: Wednesday 13 March 1963

I say only one of the terms; for the phantasy is in a certain relationship of opposition to o, a reiationsnip wnose poiyvaience and multiplicity are sufficiently defined by the composite character of this diamond shape,<> , which is just as much disjunction,V./, as conjunction,/^ , which is just as much greater, >, and lesser, <, $ qua term of this operation has the form of division, since o is irreducible, is unable in this fashion of imaging it in mathematical forms, can only represent the reminder, that if division were carried out, further on, it would be the relationship of o to S which would be involved in the

V /,也是連接的 /^,甚至是數學符號的大於>,及小於<。生命主體作為這個運作的術語,擁有區分的形式。因為大它者O是不可化簡,它無法以這種方式,形成數學形式的意象。它只能代表這個剩餘物。假如區分更進一步被執行,大它者跟生命主體的關係,會牽涉在這個圖表。

What does that mean? That to outline the translation of what I am designating in this way, I could suggest that o has taken on a sort of metaphor-function of the subject of jouissance. It would only be so, it would not be correct except in the very measure that o is assimilable to a signifier: and precisely, it is what resists this assimilation to the function of signifier.


It is indeed for that reason that o symbolises what in the sphere of the signifier is always what presents itself as lost, as what is lost to signification. Now it is precisely the residue, this fall, what resists signification, that comes to find itself constituting the foundation as such of the desiring subject, no longer the subject of jouissance, but the subject in so far as on the path of his search, in so far as he enjoys (il jouit), which is not the search for his jouissance, but it is to want to make this jouissance enter the locus of the Other, as locus of the signifier, it is there on this path that the subject precipitates himself, anticipates himself as desiring.


Now, if there is precipitation, anticipation here, it is not in the sense that this step skips over, goes more quickly than its own stages.


It is in the sense that it approaches, on this hither side of its realisation, this gap between desire and jouissance; this is where anxiety is situated.


And this is so (7) sure that the moment of anxiety is not absent, as is marked by this way of ordering the terms, in the constitution of desire, even if this moment is elided, not locatable in the concrete, it is essential.


I would ask you, for those to whom I need here to suggest an authority for them to have confidence that I am not making any mistake here, to remember in this connection what in the analysis of “Ein Kind wird geschlagen”, in the first not only structural but finalist analysis of phantasy given by Freud, Freud for his part also speaks precisely about a second moment, always elided in its constitution, elided to such an extent that even analysis can only reconstruct it.


Which is not to say that this moment of anxiety is always so inaccessible at many levels that are phenomenologically locatable. I said anxiety qua intermediary term between jouissance and desire, in so far as it is having gone through anxiety, founded on the moment of anxiety that desire is constituted.


It remains that the rest of my discourse was constructed to
illustrate something which had been perceived for a long time,
that at the heart of – we do not know how to take full advantage
when it is a question for us of understanding to what there
corresponds something that in our experience as analysts takes on a different value, the complex of castration – that at the heart, I was saying, of the experience of desire, there is something which remains when desire is “satisfied”, that which remains, as one might say, at the end of desire, an end which is always a false end, an end which is always the result of a mistake.


The value taken on by, something you will allow me to telescope
in what I sufficiently articulated the last time in connection
with detumescence, namely what is manifested, what is represented of this function of the remainder, by the phallus in its exhausted stage.


And this synchronic element which is as stupid as a cabbage, or even a cabbage-stalk, as Petrone puts it, is there to remind us that the object drops from the subject essentially in his relation to desire. That the object should be in this drop, is a dimension that must essentially be emphasised
to take this further little step to which I want to lead you
today, namely what could, with a little attention, already have appeared to you the last time in my discourse, when I tried to show you the shape in which there is incarnated this object o of the phantasy, support of desire.



Anxiety 98 Jacques Lacan

December 30, 2010

Anxiety 98

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963
Seminar 14: Wednesday 13 March 1963

There you are! This then to situate, to pay homage to those who are willing to take the trouble to see by their presence what is taught here, not alone to pay tribute to them, but to thank them for taking this trouble.


On this, for my own part, I am going – because moreover I have
sometimes to deal with listeners who only come here in an
intermittent fashion – to attempt to make myself for a moment the professor of my own teaching and since the last time I brought you the elements that I believe are sufficiently massive, to recall the major point of what I contributed the last time.


Starting then from the distinction between anxiety and fear, I tried as I reminded you just now, at least as a first step to upset the opposition at which there came to a stop the last
development of the distinction between them which is accepted by everyone today.


It is certainly not in the direction of a transition from one to the other that the movement goes. If traces of it remain in Freud, that can only be because of the error of attributing to him the idea of this reduction of one to the other, an error
founded on what I reminded you there was in him precisely as a beginning of what in reality is this reversal of positions, in this sense that if he says precisely, despite the fact that at one or other detour of his sentences the term objektlos turns up, he says that anxiety is “Angst vor Etwas”, an anxiety about something, it is certainly not to reduce it to being another form of fear, because what he underlines, is the essential distinction between the provenance of what provokes the one and the other.


Therefore it is indeed on the side of the refusal of any emphasis that tends to isolate fear from the entgegenstehen, from what poses itself in front, from fear as response, entgegen precisely, that what I said in passing about fear has to be retained.


(5) On the contrary, it is indeed to recall at first that in
anxiety, the subject is, I would say held, concerned, involved in the innermost part of himself, that simply on the
phenomenological plane we see already the beginnings of what I tried to articulate further in a more precise fashion. I
recalled in this connection the close relationship between
anxiety and the whole apparatus of what are called “defences”.


And on this path I highlighted again, not without having already articulated, prepared it in all sorts of ways, that it is indeed from the side of the real, as a first approximation, that we have to seek anxiety as that which does not deceive.


This is not to say that the real exhausts the notion of what
anxiety aims at. What anxiety aims at in the real, that with
respect to which it presents itself as a signal, is that whose
position I tried to show you in the table called, as I might say, that of the signifying division of the subject in which the X of a primitive namely his becoming as subject, this relationship of 0 over S, according to the figure of a
division, of a subject s with respect to the 0 of the Other, in so far as it is along this path of the Other that the subject has to realise himself.


It is this subject – I left it undetermined for you as regards
subject moves towards his becoming (avenement), its denomination in the first terms of these columns of division
whose other terms are found posited according to the forms which I already commented on – that I inscribe here as (^).


The end of my discourse, I think, sufficiently allowed you to recognise how at this mythical level, S, prior to any coming into play of the operation, the subject could be denominated, in so far as this term has a sense and precisely for reasons to which we will return, that one cannot in any way isolate it as subject; and mythically we will call it today the subject of jouissance.


For, as you know – I wrote it the last time, I believe – the
three stages to which they correspond the three moments of this operation are jouissance, anxiety and desire respectively. It is into these stages that I am going to advance today to show not the mediating, but the median, function of anxiety between jouissance and desire.


How could we comment again on this important moment of our
presentation, except by saying the following – the different
terms of which I would ask you to take in the fullest sense that can be given them – that jouissance would not know the Other, 0, except by this remainder o, which henceforth, in so far as I told you that there is no way of operating with this remainder, and (6) therefore that what comes at the lower stage, is the advent, at the end of the operation, of the barred subject, the subject qua implicated in the phantasy, in so far then as it is one of terms which constitute the support of desire.




December 30, 2010













Anxiety 97 Jacques Lacan

December 29, 2010

Anxiety 97

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963
Seminar 14: Wednesday 13 March 1963

and then, in this connection, he amused himself by recognising that, if I am not mistaken, in Russian as in French, the negation described as expletive, the one on which I put such a stress, because I find in it nothing less than the signifying trace in the sentence of what I call the subject of enunciating, as distinct from the subject of the enunciation, that in Russian also, there is the affirmative sentence, I mean the sentence which designates in the affirmative, the object of my fear, what I fear, it is not that it should not come, it is that it should come, and I say: that it will come (qu’il ne vienne), where I find myself confirmed by Russian, in saying that it is not enough to qualify this expletive ne as discordant, namely to mark the discordance that there is between my fear: since I am afraid that it will come, I hope that it will not come.


Well then, it seems that in Russian we see this with still more specificity – and this qoes in the direction of the value that I give this expletive ne – namely that it is indeed the subject of enunciating as such that it represents and not simply his feeling; for if again I understood correctly a little earlier, discordance in Russian is already indicated by a special nuance, namely that the ZT06 which is there is already in itself a “that not, que ne”, but marked by a different nuance.

嗯,似乎在俄文,我們看待這個會更加明確些。這可以朝向我給予這個附加的雙重否定的價值。換句話說,這確實就是它所代表的表達本身的生命的主體,不僅僅是他的感覺。再重複一遍,假如我早先理解得沒錯,俄文的不協調已經從一個特別的細微差別顯現出來。換句話說,這個 ZT06,在那裏,本身已經是一種「並非沒有」,但是標示細微的差別。

If I correctly understood Smirnoff, the b which distinguishes this “2.TQ& from the simple “that” of the Z.T0 in the second sentence, opens, indicates a nuance of the verb, a sort of conditional aspect, in such a way that this discordance is already marked at the level of the letter £> that you see here. Which does not prevent the ne of negation, which is still more expletive therefore, from the simple point of view of the signified, functioning all the same in Russian as in French leaving open then the question of its (3) interpretation and I have just said how I resolve it. There we are!

假如我正確地理解史沫諾夫,這個b 不同於這個”2.TQ&”,就在第二個句子Z.T0 的那個“ that” 。它開放,指示這個動詞的細微差別。這是一種條件句,以這種方式表達,這個不協調已經被標示在字母 “£>” 你們在此所看到的。這並沒有阻擋否定的這個「並非沒有」,因此它依舊是一種附加詞。從意旨的簡單的觀點來說,在俄文跟法文一樣,仍然有它的功用。它將它的解釋的問題攤開。我剛剛說過,我如何解決它。這就是我們的處境!

And now how am I going to get into today’s material? I will say that this morning, remarkably enough, thinking about what I was going to produce here, I started all of a sudden to evoke the time when one of my most intelligent analysands – there are still some of those – insistently posed me the question: “What can be driving you that makes you go to all this trouble to tell them that?”


It was in the arid years when linguistics, indeed the calculus of probabilities, had some place here.


In other words, I told myself that after all, it was not a bad angle either for introducing the desire of the analyst to recall that there is also a question of the desire of the teacher (1’enseignant).


I will not give you the word here and for good reasons. But it is striking that when, through a hint of culpability that I experience at the level of what one could call human tenderness, I think of the tranquillities that I am striving for, I am very ready to put forward the excuse – you saw it being highlighted on several occasions – that for example I would not be teaching if the split had not happened.


But it is not true. But, indeed, obviously, I would have liked
to devote myself to more limited, more intermittent work; but
fundamentally that does not change anything.


In short the fact that one can pose the question of the desire of the teacher to someone is the sign I would say, as Monsieur de La Palisse would say, that the question exists; it is also the sign that there is a teaching. But this introduces us when all is said and done to this curious remark that, where one does not pose the question, it is because there is a professor.


The professor exists every time the response to this question is, as I might say, written, written in his appearance or in his behaviour, in this sort of conditioning that one can situate at the level of what, in short, in analysis we call the preconscious, namely of something that one can make emerge, wherever it comes from, from institutions or even from what are called his penchants.


At this level it is not useless to see then that the professor is defined as the one who teaches about teachings, in other words: he carves up teachings. If this truth were better known, that what is involved in fact at the level of the professor is something analogous to a collage, if this truth were better known (4) it would allow them to do it with more consummate art, which precisely the collage which has taken its meaning through a work of art shows us the way to.


Namely if they made their collage in a way that is less concerned about fitting together, less restrained, they would have some chance of ending up at the very result that collage aims at, of evoking properly speaking this lack which gives all its value to the figurative work itself, when it succeeds of course. Along this path therefore they would manage to connect up with the proper effect of what is precisely a teaching.



Anxiety 96 Jacques Lacan

December 29, 2010

Anxiety 96

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963
Seminar 14: Wednesday 13 March 1963

Thanks to Freud we have the plane of cleavage. That is
miraculous in itself. In the ultra-precocious perception that
Freud had of its essential character, we have the function of castration as intimately linked to the traits of the decayed
(caduc) object, of caducity as characterising it essentially.


It (15)is only starting from this decayed object that we can see what is meant by speaking about partial object. In fact I will tell you right away: the partial object, is an invention of the neurotic, it is a phantasy. It is he who makes a partial object of it. As regards the orgasm and its essential relationship with the function that we define as the fall of the most real of the subject, have you not had – those who have here the experience of being analysts – the testimony of it more than once?


How often have you been told that a subject had, I am not saying his first, but one of his first orgasms when he had to hand up in a great hurry the copy of a composition or of a drawing that he had to finish quickly and where there was collected what? His work, at the moment when it was absolutely expected that something would be torn from him. The collection of the copies: at that moment he ejaculates. He ejaculates at the high-point of anxiety of course.


When people speak to us about this famous eroticisation of
anxiety, is it not first of all necessary to know what
relation anxiety already has with Eros? What the respective
aspects of this anxiety are from the side of jouissance and from the side of desire, is what we will try to disengage the next time.


13.3.63 XIV 1
Seminar 14: Wednesday 13 March 1963

Several of you were kind enough to respond to my complaint the last time of not yet having been able to find the Russian term which corresponded to this piece by Chekov which I learned about – I am saying this in passing – through Mr Kaufmann – I will come back to it later. It is Mr Kaufmann himself who, even though he is not a Russian speaker, brought me today the exact text which I asked Smirnoff for example as a Russian speaker to comment on rapidly.


I mean – indeed I scarcely dare to articulate these sounds – I do not know the phonology – to save what is involved in the title, CTcflXW which is the plural of the which CTPhXB gives the words that concern dread, fear, anxiety, terror, anguish and poses for us very difficult problems of translation.

我的意思是,我確實不大敢表達這些心聲,以免辜負篇名牽涉到的內涵。(我不懂語音學),篇名 CTcflXW 是 CTPhXB 的複數形,這些欄位意思關係到恐懼、害怕、焦慮、驚恐、痛苦。我們翻譯時,這會形成非常困難的問題。

It is a little bit – I am thinking about it as an improvisation,
I thought of it just now – like what was raised in connection
with the problem of colours, whose connotation surely does not overlap from one tongue to another. The difficulty – I already signaled it for you – that we have in grasping the term which in Russian would correspond precisely to anxiety – because this is where our troubles begin – shows it clearly.


In any case, if I correctly understood, from the debates among
the Russian speakers here that this word gave rise to, it appears that in one way what I advanced the last time here was correct, namely that Chekov had not intended by this to speak about anxiety.


At this point, I come back to what I wanted to render to Kaufmann,it is then very exactly the following: I used this example the last time to clarify, as one might say, in a lateral fashion, the thing whose reversal I was’ trying to operate before you, namely to introduce the question, I said that it would be just as legitimate to say in fact that fear has no object; and, as I was going to announce in any case, as I already had done previously, that anxiety, for its part, was not without an object, that had a certain interest for me. But it is obvious that this absolutely does not exhaust the question of what are these fears or frights or dreads or whatever else, which are (2) designated in the examples of Chekov.


Now, since – I do not think I am misrepresenting him – Mr
Kaufmann is trying to articulate something quite precise and
focused precisely on these Chekovian frights, I think it is
important to underline that I only made a lateral usage of it and one that was dependent on the one that will be brought forward by him in a work that is to be done later.


And on this point, I think that before beginning today I am going to allow you to profit from a little discovery, due again to Mr Kaufmann, who is not a Russian speaker, which is that in the course of this research he found another term, the most common term for “I am afraid”, which it appears is £iCl tO£ is the first word that you see written there in the two sentences;

對於這一點,我想在今天開始之前,我將要讓你們從一件小的發現當中得到利益。再一次感謝考夫曼先生,他並不會說俄語,但是在這個研究的過程,他發現另外一個術語,來表達「我恐怕」,俄文似乎是 £iCl tO£b。那是你們看到被寫在那裏的第一個字,在這兩個句子裏。


Anxiety 95 Jacques Lacan

December 28, 2010

Anxiety 95

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963

Seminar 13: Wednesday 6 March 1963

For with castration also we are dealing with an organ, before we get to the castration threat, namely what I have called the possible gesture, could we not, analogously to the image that I produced today before you, see whether we do not have the indication that anxiety is to be placed elsewhere?


Because a phallus, because people are always gargling on about
biology, approaching it in an unbelievably frivolous way, a
phallus is not limited to the field of mammals. There are a whole lot of insects, all revolting in different ways, from the black beetle to the cockroach, which have what? Stings (des dards).


The sting goes a long way in effect in the animal. The sting is an instrument, and in many cases – I do not want to give you a course in comparative anatomy today, I would ask you to refer to the authors, if necessary I will indicate them to you – the sting is an instrument: it is used for hooking on. We know nothing about the amorous enjoyments of the black beetle or the cockroach. Nothing indicates however that they are deprived of it.


It is even rather probable that jouissance and sexual union
are always in the closest possible relationship.


And what does it matter! Our experience as men and the experience that we can presume to be those of mammals who most resemble us conjoin the locus of the jouissance and the instrument, the sting.


While we take the thing as being self-explanatory, nothing
indicates that even where the copulatory instrument is a sting or a claw, an object for hooking on, in any case neither a
tumescent nor detumescent object, jouissance is linked to the
function of the object.


That jouissance, orgasm in our case, to limit ourselves to
ourselves, coincides with as I might say the putting out of
action, the putting out of operation of the instrument by
detumescence, is something that altogether deserves that we
should not hold it to be something, as I might say, which is as Goldstein expresses it, part of the Wesenheit, an essential part of the organism.


(14) This coincidence of approach has nothing rigorous about it once one begins to think about it; and then it is not, as I might say, in the nature of human things. In fact what do we see in Freud’s first intuition about a certain source of anxiety?


Coitus interruptus. It is precisely the case in which by the
very nature of the operations being carried out the instrument is revealed in its suddenly failed function of being an
accompaniment to orgasm, in so far as orgasm is supposed to
signify a common satisfaction.


I leave this question in suspense. I am saying simply that
anxiety is put forward by Freud in its essential function there
precisely where the accompaniment of the orgasmic build-up with what is called the exercise of the instrument is precisely
disjointed. The subject can reach ejaculation, but it is an
ejaculation outside; and the anxiety is precisely provoked by this fact which is highlighted, what I called earlier the putting out of action of the apparatus, of the instrument of jouissance.


Subjectivity, if you wish, is focussed on the collapse of the
phallus. This collapse of the phallus, exists in any case in a normally completed orgasm. It is precisely to this that our
attention should be directed to highlight one of the dimensions of castration.


How is copulation between man and woman experienced, this is what allows the function of castration, namely the fact that the phallus is more significant in human experience by its collapse, by its possibility of being a fallen object, than by its presence, this is what designates the possibility of the place of castration in the history of desire.


It is essential to highlight this. Because what did I end with
the last time, if not by telling you: as long as desire is not structurally situated, is not distinguished from the dimension of jouissance, as long as the question is not that of knowing what is the relationship, and whether there is a relationship for each partner between desire – specifically the desire of the Other – and jouissance, the whole affair is condemned to obscurity.



Anxiety 94 Jacques Lacan

December 28, 2010

Anxiety 94

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963

Seminar 13: Wednesday 6 March 1963

Is it not the occasion to notice a certain number of outstanding
features which I would wish, as best I can and pushing my plough
in front of me, to introduce you to. Because the breasts, since
we have them there for example on Saint Agatha’s plate, is it not an opportunity to reflect, since – it has been said already a long time ago – anxiety appears in separation; but then – we see it clearly – if they are separable objects, they are not separable by chance like the leg of a grasshopper, they are separable because they already have, as I might say, very sufficiently, anatomically a certain stuck on character, they are hung there.


This very particular character of certain anatomical parts completely specifies a sector of the animal scale, the one that one calls precisely, not without reason, it is even rather curious that this quite essential, properly speaking signifying character of this trait has been noticed; because after all it seems that there are more structural things than the mammary to designate a certain animal grouping which has many other traits of homogeneity through which it could be designated.


This trait was no doubt chosen, and it was not a mistake. But it is indeed one of the cases where one sees the fact that the objectifying spirit is itself not uninfluenced by the pregnance of psychological functions, I would say, to make myself understood by those who have not yet understood, a certain feature of pregnance which is not simply significant, which induces in us certain significations in which we are very much engaged.


Viviparous-oviparous: a division really made to confuse us.
Because all animals are viviparous because they generate eggs in which there is a living being and all animals are oviparous
because there is no vivipar which was not vivipared inside an egg.


But why not really give all its importance to this fact which is really completely analogous to this breast which I earlier spoke to you about, that for the eggs which have a certain time of intrauterine life, there is this element, irreducible to the division of the egg in itself, which is called the placenta, that there is here also something stuck on and that in a word it is not so much the child who pumps milk from the mother as the breast, just as it is the existence of the placenta which gives to the position of the child inside the body of the mother its characteristics – sometimes manifested on a pathological plane – of parasitic nesting.


You see where I intend to put the emphasis: on the privilege at a certain level of elements that we could quality as amboceptors.


On what side is this breast? On the side of the one who sucks or on the side of the one who is sucked? And after all I am doing nothing here other than reminding you of something that
effectively analytic theory was led to, namely to speak, I would not say indifferently, but with ambiguity in certain sentences, of the breast or of the mother, underlining of course that it is not the same thing. But has everything been said when the breast is qualified as a partial object?


When I say amboceptor, I am underlining that it is as necessary
to articulate the relationship of the maternal subject to the
breast as that of the suckling to the breast.


The cut does not happen in the same place for the two; there are two cuts so distant that they even leave different residues (dechets) for the two. Because the cutting of the cord for the child leaves separated from him droppings (chutes) which are called the envelopes. This is homogeneous with himself and in continuity with his ectoderm and his endoderm.


The placenta is not particularly involved in the affair. For the mother, the cut is placed at the level of the dropping of the placenta, that is even the reason why these are called des caduques and the decay (caducite) of this object o is here what constitutes its function.


Well then, all of this is not meant to make you revise
immediately some of the relations deduced, imprudently deduced from a hasty sketching of what I am calling the line of separation where there is produced the dropping, the niederfalien typical of the approach of an o which is nevertheless more essential to the subject than any other part of himself.


(13) But for the moment to make you steer straight towards what is essential, namely for you to perceive where this questioning leads, to the level of castration.



Anxiety 93 Jacques Lacan

December 28, 2010

Anxiety 93

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963

Seminar 13: Wednesday 6 March 1963

Only this is the very thing which ought to make us
suspicious. What the sadist seeks in the Other – because it is quite clear that for him the Other exists and it is not because he takes him as object that we ought to say that there is some relationship or other that we could call immature or again, as it is put, pregenital, the Other is absolutely essential and this indeed is what I wanted to articulate when I gave you my seminar on Ethics by bringing together Sade and Kant, the essential putting into question of the Other which goes so far as to simulate, and not by chance, the requirements of the moral law, which are indeed there to show us that the reference to the Other as such forms part of his aim – what is he searchinq for there?


It is here that the texts, the texts that we can hold onto, I (10) mean those which give some hold on an adequate critique,
take on their value, of course, a value signaled by the
strangeness of some moments, of some detours which in a way
detach themselves, explode with respect to the line that is being followed.


I will leave you to search in Juliette, even in the
One hundred and twenty days, these few passages where the
characters, completely occupied in slaking on these chosen
victims their greed for torments, enter into this bizarre,
singular and curious trance, indicated, I repeat, on several
occasions in the text of Sade, which is expressed in these
strange words, in effect that it is necessary for me to
articulate here: “I had,” cries the tormentor, “I had the skin of the cunt”.


This is not a feature which is obvious along the track of the
imaginable, and the privileged character, the moment of
enthusiasm, the character of supreme trophy brandished at the
high point of the chapter is something which, I believe, is
sufficiently indicative of the following: it is that something is sought which is in a way the reverse (l’envers) of the subject, which takes on here its signification from this feature of the glove turned inside-out which underlines the feminine essence of the victim.


It is the passage to the outside of what is most hidden that is involved; but let us observe at the same time that this moment is in a way indicated in the text itself as being totally impenetrated by the subject, allowing there precisely to be masked here the trait of his own anxiety.


In a word, if there is something for that matter which evokes how little light we can throw on the truly sadistic relationship, that the form of explanatory texts turn aside from the phantasy, if there is something that they suggest to us, it is in a way the instrumental character to which the function of the agent is reduced.


That which in a way is hidden, except in a flash, the aim of his action, is the work aspect of his operation. He also has a relationship with God, this is what is exposed everywhere in Sade’s text. He cannot take a step forward without this reference to the supremely wicked being and it is just as
clear for him as for the one who is speaking that it is God that is involved.


For his part he goes to all sorts of exhausting trouble, even to the extent of missing his goal, to realise – which, thank God, it has to be said, Sade spares us having to reconstruct, for he articulates it as such – to realise the jouissance of God.


I think I have shown you here the game of occultation through
which anxiety and object, in the one and in the other, are
(11) brought to the forefront, one at the expense of the other
term, but how also in the structures there is designated, there
is declared the radical link between anxiety and this object in so far as it falls. In that very way its essential function is approached, its decisive function as remainder of the subject, the subject as a real. Undoubtedly this invites us to look again, to place a greater accent on the reality of these objects.


And in moving on to this following chapter, I cannot fail to
remark the degree to which this real status of objects, already
nevertheless located for us, has been left to one side, been
badly defined by people who would nevertheless like to consider themselves as the biologising reference points and bearings of psychoanalysis for you.