Desire 96 Jacques Lacan

Desire 96

Jacques Lacan

Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋 `

4.2.59 176
The moment, she tells us, that she made her decisive intervention is not the moment that she began to put him on the path of his aggression, with as a result for the subject moreover a very curious manifestation that one could call psychosomatic, whose character she does not quite pick up, that namely instead of the cough, the following day he had a little colicky pain before entering. God knows whether he tightened his …… for that, but as I said above he has everything to lose at the moment of entering the psychoanalyst’s office for the following session.


But Ella Sharpe’s own interpretation appears to be very illuminating. It is at the second session after this interpretation when the subject tells her that he again had had a colicky pain on leaving (31) the session the last time. He then talks to her about
what? He says, I was unable to use my car because the garage man had not finished with it. I was not able to be angry with him because he is so kind that it is impossible to blame him, he is very very good.


And then the car is not a necessity. And he adds with an accent of imitation, but all the same I really want it, I like it, I love it. (cf 146)


And she makes no mistake. For the first time, she says, I was able to deal with the libidinal wishes. Here it is a question of libido. We are therefore in complete accord with her. If I am doing a critique of Ella Sharpe, it is because I find her at every point, in this observation, to be admirably sensitive.


She understands the importance of that, namely what is present in the life of a subject as desire properly speaking, desire being characterised by its non-motivated character — he has no need of this car; the fact that he declares his desire to her, that it is the first time that she hears such a discourse, is something which presents itself as unreasonable in the discourse of the subject.


She tells us that she hops on it, namely that she underlines it for him. It is a curious thing, here we have something like a kind of wobble of the projector. While she was always so good at telling us what she said to the subject, even the most daring
things, the most risky things, here we do not know exactly what she said to him. It is very annoying. What she tells us, is that she was really overjoyed to have the opportunity of telling him: there you are admitting that you desire something. But what (32) it is she might have told him, we will never know.


4.2.59 182
We know simply that she might all the same have told him something rather oriented in the sense of what she had told him before, to explain why it is precisely after what she told him that the following day the subject came to tell her, not quite content, a bit dissatisfied that that night he had wet the bed.


We cannot consider that this is, as I told you already, in itself a symptom, which, however transitory it may be, and however significant it may be of the fact that a blow had been delivered which certainly had its effect, is all the same something which absolutely confirms us in what I could call the sense of the proper direction of the statement if there is a statement (dire) Namely that if we have the notion about this
thing that enuresis represents, it is certainly what I would call the personal implementation of the penis.


But again it is not when all is said and done a genital implementation. It is precisely the penis as real which very frequently intervenes as an echo – this is what clinical work shows us in the case of children – of the sexual activity of the parents; it is to the degree that the subjects, whether masculine or feminine children are in a period when they are very profoundly interested by the sexual relations of the parents that there occur enuretic manifestations which on occasion are the bringing into play on the plane of the real of the organ as such. But the organ as such, as real, no longer as signifier, which is indeed something which shows us that on this occasion Ella Sharpe’s intervention had in effect a certain import.


(33) Is this import appropriate? This is of course what remains to be looked at more closely. It is quite clear that what follows, namely the arrival, the emergence, certain
reactions which the subject seems to regard with a certain feeling of satisfaction, and which is the fact that when he is playing he no longer allows his companions to tease him, namely that he caught one of them around the neck and held him in a strangle hold in a corner with sufficient force for him not to want to start again, can in no way be considered as something which is really along the line of what is to be obtained.


Let us not forget all the same that if there is something the subject is to be allowed, namely to corner the other in a game, this is absolutely not the same thing as “cornering him” by the throat about this game. This is precisely an inadequate
reaction, one which does not render him for a moment any more capable of cornering him in the game, namely where relationships with others occur, the other as the locus of the word, as locus of the law, as locus of the conventions of the game.


It is precisely this which is found to have failed because of this slight lowering of the act of analytic intervention. I think that today we have pushed things fairly far. The next time I will give the last seminar of what is grouped here around the literary analysis of desire and its interpretation, and I will try to gather for you in some formulae how we should conceive of this function of the phallic signifier in its most (34) general form in connection with the ……… relationship and the fashion in which the subject situates himself in desire.


I will try to collect around these notions that I am trying to articulate here with the help of the graph the function which we should very precisely give to the phallic signifier.


I will also try to show you where exactly there is situated, how in terms of mapping things out in our exercise of analysis you can try to situate the phallic signifier in this schema. In a word, and to give you something which is borrowed from the work
of a writer to whom I already alluded here, Lewis Carroll, I will show you what Lewis Carroll says somewhere more or less in the following terms: he thought that he had seen a garden gate – this famous gate of paradise of the interior of the maternal
womb around which there are currently centred, or even engulfed all the analytic theories – which could be opened with a key.


He looked more closely and perceived that it was a double rule of three. The next time I will show you what this rule of three is.




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: