Anxiety 253 Jacques Lacan

Anxiety 253

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康



1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

(3) In order for the symptom to emerge from the state of an as yet unformulated enigma, the step is not that it should be formulated, it is that in the subject something should be
outlined whose character is that it is suggested to him that
there is a cause for that. This is the original dimension taken
on here in the form of the phenomenon, and I will show you
besides where one can rediscover it.


This dimension – that there is a cause for that – in which simply the implication of the subject in his behaviour is broken, this rupture is the necessary complement for the symptom to be approachable by us. What I intend to say to you and to show you, is that this sign does not constitute a step in what I could call the understanding of the situation, that it is something more, that there is a reason why this step is essential in the treatment of the obsessional.


This is impossible to articulate if we do not display in an
altogether radical fashion the relationship between the function of o, the cause of desire, and the mental dimension of cause as such. This, I already indicated in what I might call some asides in my discourse, and I wrote it somewhere at a point that I could find again in the article “Kant with Sade” which appeared in the April edition of the journal Critique. It is on this point that I intend today to bring to bear the main part of my discourse.


From now on you see the interest in marking, in making it
likely, that this dimension of the cause indicates – and only
indicates – the emergence, the presentification, in the starting data of the analysis of the obsessional, of this o around which -this is in the future of what I am trying for the moment to explain to you – around which there has to turn the whole analysis of the transference in order not to be obliged, required to turn in a circle.


A circle certainly is not nothinq, the circuit is gone through; but it is clear that there is – and I am not the one who enounced it – a problem about the end of the analysis, one which is enounced as follows: the irreducibility of a transference neurosis. This transference neurosis is or is not the same as the one which was detectable at the beginning.


Undoubtedly it is different in being entirely present, it appears to us sometimes in an impasse, that is to say sometimes
culminates in a complete stagnation of the relationships between the analysand and the analyst. Its only difference to everything that is produced in an analogous way, at the beginning of the analysis, is that it is completely collected together.


(4) One enters analysis through an enigmatic door: for the
transference neurosis is there in each and every one, even in Alcibiades: it is Agathon that he loves. But in a being as free as Alcibiades, the transference is obvious. Even though this love is what is called a real love, what we too often call a lateral transference, this is where the transference is.


The astonishing thing is that one goes into analysis despite all the things that hold us back in the transference functioning as real.


The real subject of astonishment as regards the circuit of the analysis, is how, going into it despite the transference
neurosis, one can obtain the transference neurosis itself on the way out. No doubt it is because there is some misunderstanding about the analysis of transference. Without this one would not see there being manifested sometimes, this satisfaction which I have heard expressed, that to have given energy to this transference neurosis is not perhaps perfection, but it is all the same a result; it is true – but it is all the same a result that is itself rather perplexing.


If I enounce that the path passes through o, the only object to be proposed for analysis, for the analysis of transference, this does not mean that this does not leave open, as you will see, another problem.


It is precisely in this subtraction that there can appear this essential dimension, that of a question always posed, in short, but certainly not resolved – for every time it is posed the inadequacy of the answers is really tangible, evident, striking to every eye – that of the desire of the analyst.


This short reminder to show you the interest of what is presently at stake, this short reminder having been given, let us return to o. o is the cause, the cause of desire. I pointed out to you that to return to the enigma which the functioning of the category of the cause proposes to us is not a bad way of understanding it.



Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: