拉康:RSI 27

拉康:RSI 27

Seminar of April 8, 1975
Cogitation remains glued into an imaginary rooted in the body, which is the imaginary of the body. Literature bears witness to this, philosophical as well as artistic–which besides are in no way distinguished from one another. To quickly lay down my cards, I am going to speak of the imaginary of the sphere and the cross.


I have wandered into Joyce because someone asked me to speak before a congress. Well, if Joyce is glued into the sphere and the cross, it is not owed only to his having read Saint Thomas because of his education with the Jesuits.


You are all as glued as he into the sphere and the cross. Moreover, this makes the plus sign. It may happen that an artist who plaques a bit of plaster on a wall will make something that by chance resembles this (Figure 2). But no one aperceives that this is already the Borromean knot.


When you see this, what do you make of it imaginarily? You make two things that hook together, which bends them in this fashion (Figure 3). By means of which, the round slips over what is knotted in this way. It is not natural–what does that mean, “natural”?–it is not natural to your imagination to do the contrary and distort the round in this way (Figure 4).


The Borromean knot is not necessarily what I have drawn for you a hundred times. This (Figure 5) is a Borromean knot as valuable as the one I usually flatten out.

波羅米恩結未必是我曾經跟你們繪製過一百次的東西。 這個(圖形五)是一個波羅米恩結,跟我通常擺平的那個波羅米恩結同樣有價值。

If I was one day taken hold of by the Borromean knot, it was in relation to this order of event (événement), of arrival (avènement), which is called analytic discourse, a social tie emerging in our day. This discourse has an historical value, yet to be established.


It is true that my voice is weak for sustaining it, but this is perhaps all the better, because if it were stronger, I would perhaps have fewer chances of subsisting. I mean that, based on all of history, it appears to me difficult for the social ties prevailing until now not to silence any voice that sustains another, emerging discourse.


This is what one has always seen up to now, and it is not because there is no
more inquisition that we should believe that the social ties I have defined–the master discourse, the university discourse, even the hysterico-diabolic discourse–would not stifle what I might have of a voice.


This said, me in there, I am a subject, I am taken in this business because I have put myself into ex-sisting as an analyst. This does not at all mean that I believe myself a mission of truth, as have believed some people who have come down on my head. No mission of truth since the truth can only be half-said (se mi-dire). So let us rejoice that my voice is low.

當說完這個之後,我在這裡,我是一個主體,我專注於這件事情,因為我曾經將我自己擺進「先前存在」,作為一位分析家。 這根本沒有意謂著,我相信我自己負有真理的使命。如同一些人相信的,他們曾經支持我的想法。我並沒有真理的使命,因為真理僅能被說一半。所以讓我們歡欣,我的聲音很微弱。

In philosophy up to the present, there has been the good philosophy, the ordinary one, and then, from time to time, there have been kooks who believe themselves a mission of truth.


The lot (L’ensemble) are simple buffoonery. But my saying it has no importance–fortunately for me, no one believes me. All told, for the moment, the good one dominates.


I made a little visit over the vacation–a story of giving him a little sign before both of us dissolve–to the person named Heidegger. I like him a lot. There is something in him like a presentiment of sicanalisse, as Aragon used to say. But it is only a presentiment, because Freud doesn’t interest him at all.

However, Freud made something emerge from which I draw the consequences to give weight to its effects–which are not nothing, but this would suppose that the psychoanalyst existed a little bit more.


He has nonetheless begun to ex-sist. How, for this knot I have come to–not, of course, without getting my paws tangled up in it as much as you–how can
we make it so it tightens, this knot, to the point where the speakingbeing, as I call it, no longer believes, no longer believes in being, outside of the being of speaking?


He believes in being; it would be crude to say that this is exclusively because there is the verb “to be.” No, this is why I say “being of speaking.” He believes that because he speaks he is healthy.


This is an erre, and even a trait unaire. Thanks to which what I call an oriented nonsense (déconnage) has prevailed in what one calls thought, which is said to be human. I am letting myself go; I get the itch (la mouche me pique) from time to time. This erre merits being pinned to the word transhumant16– so-called humanity only owing to a naturality of transit, which postulates transcendence.


My succeeding has no connotation of success in my eyes. I, like Freud, only believe in the failed act, but in the failed act as revealer of the site, of the situation, of the transit in question, with transference as its key. Simply, one must bring this trans back to its proper measure. My success, therefore–my succession is what this means–will it remain in this transitory?


This is the best thing that can happen, since, in any case, there is no chance that the humant-trans will ever approach any of this. Therefore, peregrination without end is worth as much.

這是可能發生最佳情況,因為,無論在任何情況,這個「超越的人類」會有機會到達這個的任何地方。因此, 沒有目的地遊歷同樣具有價值。


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 )

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: