拉康:RSI 31

拉康:RSI 31

Seminar of April 15, 1975
I imagined this morning on waking two little drawings of nothing at all; you may have seen the trouble I had reproducing them. It is a question (Figures 1 and 2) of two triangles of the most ordinary type, which overlap each other.


Those of Figure 1 are knotted as a chain and, based on this fact, are in every respect comparable with two torii, one of which passes through the hole of the other. Those of Figure 2 are not knotted, and can be pulled free of one another. This is like a torus flattened so as to play –not to be knotted but to play–in the hole of the other.


The case is the same for the two triangles in Figure 3, except that one of them is folded around what is presented as one of the sides of the other. I say side, because one imagines that a triangle has three sides, which is no longer the case in this geometry that is not one–topology.


A topology is what permits us to grasp how elements that are not knotted two by two can nonetheless make a knot. We call a Borromean knot that which is constituted in a fashion such that in subtracting, in breaking one of these elements that I have figured–this is only a figure; this is not a consistency–all the others are equally unknotted from each other.


This can be done for a number as large as one might enounce (énoncer), and you know that there is no limit to this enunciation. It is in this that it seems to me that the term sexual non-rapport can be supported in a sayable fashion; inasmuch as it is supported essentially by a non-rapport of the couple.


Is it that the knot as chain suffices to represent the rapport of a couple? In a time when most of you were not in my seminar, I illustrated with two torii the tie to be made between demand and desire.


I drew (Figure 4) a torus that enters into the hole of another. I figured on each that turns in a round, and I thus showed that what makes an encircling on this one is traced on the other, in a series of coilings around the central hole. What does that mean?–if not that demand and desire are knotted. They are knotted in the measure that a torus represents a cycle, and therefore is orientable.


What makes the difference between the sexes, as you know, is situated at the level of the cell, and especially at the level of the cellular nucleus or in the chromosomes, which, being microscopic, appears to you to insure a definite level of the real.


But why the devil want what is microscopic to be more real than what is macroscopic! Something usually differentiates sex. In one case, there is a homozygotism, which is to say, a certain gene that makes a pair with another; and in the other case, there is a heterozygotism. Now, one never knows in advance how this is distributed in each species; I mean, whether it is the male or the female that is homzygote.


It is a matter of giving all of its weight to the proverb of which André Gide makes so much in Paludes: Numero deux impare gaudit–which he translates, The number two rejoices in being odd [impair].

問題是要重視安德列、紀德在「月湖」如此重視的這個格言「Numero deux impare gaudit-」他翻譯為「二的數目歡喜于成為奇數」。

As I have said for a long time, he is quite right, for nothing would realize the two if there were no odd, the odd inasmuch as it begins at number three–which is not seen immediately, and renders the Borromean knot necessary.


The Borromean knot puts within reach something crucial for our practice: that we have no need for a microscope for there to appear the reason for this first truth, to wit, that love is hainamoration18, and not velle bonum aliculi, as Saint Augustine states (énonce).


Bonum is well-being, and no doubt, on occasion, love is preoccupies itself a little, the minimum, with the well-being of the other. But it is clear that it only does so up to a certain limit, of which I have not up to this day found anything better than the Borromean knot to represent it.


Let it be understood that it is not a matter of a figure, of a representation–it is a
matter of the real. This limit is only conceivable in terms of ex-sistence, which, in its vocabulary, means the play permitted by the Borromean knot to one of the cycles, to one of the consistencies.

讓我們瞭解到,這不是一個圖形的問題,不是一個符號再現的問題—這是真實界的問題。 這個限制僅能用「外部存在」這個術語,才能想像。這個「外部存在」,在它的字彙裡,意味著,被波羅米恩結容許的這個遊戲,對於其中一個這些圓圈,其中一個一致性。

Starting from this limit, love insists (s’ obstine)–because there is something of the real in the affair–love insists on something completely the contrary of the well-being of the other.


What I have called hainamoration, with the vocabulary substantified by the writing with which I support it. The notion of a limit implies an oscillation, a yes or no. Here, it is to wish the good of someone, or to wish strictly the contrary. Which might suggest to you the idea of a sinusoid.


What is it like, this sinusoid? Like this (Figure 5). The limit is the circle. Is this sinusoid coiled? Does it make a knot in being coiled, or not? This is a question posed by the notion of consistency, more nodal, if I can say so, than that of the line, since the knot is subjacent. There is no consistency that is not supported by the knot. It is in this that the knot imposes the idea itselfof the real.

這個「正弦曲線」是什麼樣子呢?就像這個( 圖形五)。這個限制是這個圓圈。這個正弦曲線被捲曲嗎?在被捲曲的狀態,它是否會形成一個環結? 這是一個問題,被一致性的觀念所提出,容我這樣說,它比線的觀念具有更多的節點,因為這個環結是作為基礎。沒有一個一致性不是由這個環結所支持。

The real is characterized by being knotted. Yet this knot has to be made. The notion of the unconscious is supported by this: not only does one find it already made, but one finds oneself made–one is made; one is made by this act x by which the knot is already made.


There is no other possible definition for my sense of the unconscious. The unconscious is the real. I measure my terms if I say–it is the real inasmuch as it is holed. I advance a little more than I have the right to, since there is no one but I who says it, who still says it.


Soon, everyone will repeat it, and by the force of the rain that will fall on it, it will end up making very pretty fossil. In the meanwhile, it’s something new. Up to now, there has been no one but I who said there was no sexual rapport, and this made a hole in a point of being, of the speakingbeing.


The speaking being is not widespread, but it is like mold: it has a tendency to spread.



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: