Archive for February, 2012

超越互为主体间性 01

February 16, 2012

超越互为主体间性 01

The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan

Xv Odd or even? Beyond intersubjectivity
第十四章: 奇数或偶数?超越互为主体间性




I am sorry that our good friend Riguet isn’t here today, for we are going to touch on questions on which he could perhaps have cast some light. We are going to brush up on the data of what in a confused fashion is called cybernetics, which is nonetheless something which concerns us in the highest degree in this little matter we’ve been pursuing for the last two seminars, what is the subject?,

我很抱歉,我们的好朋友瑞奎特今天不在这儿,因为我们将要探讨这些问题:「对于这些问题,他本来能够给予我们一些启发。我们将会温习这些笼统被称为电脑的资料。电脑跟我们有非常强烈的关系,在我们过去两个研讨班一直在讨论的这件小事情: 主体是什么?

in so far as it is, technically speaking, in the Freudian sense of the word, the
unconscious subject, and by way of that, essentially the subject who speaks.


Now, it seems more and more clear to us that this subject who speaks is
beyond the ego.


Let us begin again at the acme of the specimen dream of Irma’s injection. In so
far as it continues the quest of the previous day, the dream’s quest leads to the
gap, to this open mouth at the back of which Freud sees this terrifying,
composite image which we compared to the revelation of the Medusa’s head.


This dream is not unique in this respect. Those who participated in my
seminars the year before they were held here may recall the singular character
of the Wolfman’s dream, of which it could be said that it has, over the whole of
the analysis of this case, a function analogous to the acme which we discern in
the dream of Irma’ s injection.


In fact, it enters into account after a long period of analysis, the very intellectualised – a term which isn’t in the text but which corresponds well to what Freud means – character of which Freud himself notes, as a kind of analytical game, which nonetheless constitutes an authentic quest on the part of the subject, but for a very long time remains at the surface, as if inoperative.


It is a stagnant analysis which promises to be interminable, when at last the dream appears, reactivated by a specific occasion in the life of the subject. and its great importance derivtng from having been repeated many times over. from a given epoch in childhood on.


What is this dream? It is the apparition. through a suddenly opened window.
of the sight of a large tree. on whose branches wolves are perched. In the dream and in the drawing which the subject has bequeathed to us. which Freud reproduced. they are sufficiently enigmatic for us legitimately to wonder if they are really wolves. for they have distinctive fox tails. which we have formerly paused over to discuss.


As you know. this dream turns out to be extremely rich. and the associations it triggers will lead Freud and his subject to nothing less than to the discovery. purely posited,reconstructed. of the primal scene.


The primal scene is reconstructed from the cross-checking which takes place
in the course of analysis. it isn’t relived. Nothing emerges in the memory of the
subject – we will have to ask ourselves about this term memory – which might
lead to talking about the resurrection of the scene. but everything forces one to
the conviction that it did indeed happen in this way.

原初的场景重新被建构,从精神分析的过程所发生的交叉比对。这个梦并没有被重温。在主体的记忆里,没有东西出现。我们将必须询问我们自己关于「记忆」这个术语。记忆可能会导致谈论到这个场景的复活。但是每一样东西都强迫我们相信: 它确实是以这种方式发生。

So in this respect there’s a far more significant gap between this scene and what the subject sees in the dream than the normal distance between the latent content and the manifest content of a dream.


And yet. in both cases. we have a fascinating vision. Which for a time suspends the subject in a state of captivation in which he loses himself. To Freud. the vision of the dream seems like the reversal of the fascination of the gaze.


It is in the gaze of these wolves, so anxiety-provoking in the account of it given by the dreamer. that Freud sees the equivalent of the fascinated gaze of the infant confronted with the scene which profoundly marked him in the imaginary and redirected his entire instinctual life.


We find there something like a unique and decisive revelation of the subject, in which an indefinite something that is unsayable is concentrated, in which the subject is lost for a moment, blown up. As in the dream of Irma’s injection, the subject decomposes, fades away, dissociates into its various egos.


Similarly, after the dream of the Wolfman, we witness the real start of the analysis, which makes possible the dissociation inside the subject of a personality which is so singularly composite that it makes for the originality of the style of the case.


As you know, the problems left outstanding by this analysis were to be so serious that in the aftermath it could degenerate into psychosis. As I pointed out to you. one can ask whether the latter wasn’t linked to the manoeuvrings of the analysis.



Seminar final 07

February 16, 2012

Seminar final 07

Jacques Lacan


Seminar 3: Wednesday 21 December 1976

The distinction between the shape and the structure is important here.


It is not for nothing that I marked here something which is a torus, is a torus even though its shape does not allow this to appear. Is the shape something which lends itself to suggestion? Here is the question that I am posing, and that I pose while advancing the primacy of the structure.


Here it is difficult for me not to put forward the fact that the Klein bottle, this old Klein bottle that I made so much of, if I remember correctly, in the Four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, this old Klein bottle has in reality that shape there.


It is strictly nothing other than this, except for the fact that for it to become a bottle we correct it in this way (in red), namely that we have made it come back in the following shape, that we have made it come back in such a way that we no longer comprehend anything about its essential nature.


Is there not effectively, in the fact of calling it a bottle, is there not here a falsification, a falsification with respect to the fact that only its presentation here in green is the something that precisely allows it to be immediately grasped the way in which the junction of the front is made with the back, namely everything that is cut out in this surface, on condition of making it complete, and that is again a question: what is meant by making a cut which involves the whole of the surface?


These are the questions that I ask myself and that I hope to be able to resolve this year, I mean that this brings us to something fundamental as regards the structure of the body, or more exactly of the body considered as structure. That the body is able to present all sorts of aspects which are of pure shape, that just now I made dependent on suggestion, this is what is important for me. The difference of the shape, of the shape insofar as it is always more or less suggested with the structure, that is what I would like this year to highlight for you.


You must excuse me. This, I must say, is assuredly not the best thing that I could have brought to you this morning. I had, as you see, I had the great worry, I am floundering, – there is a case for saying, it is not the first time – I am floundering in what I have to put forward to you and that is why I am leaving to give you the opportunity to have someone who will be this morning a better orator than I, I mean Alain Didier who is here present, and whom I invite to come to tell you what he has drawn from certain data of mine, which are the drawings of writing and which he would really like to share with you.


– Alain Didier: Good. I must say first of all that Dr Lacan is taking me completely by surprise, that I was not warned that he proposed to give me the floor to try to take up again a point about which I spoke to him these days, of which I should tell you right away that personally I am not making any articulation whatsoever with what we are being told at present. I sense it confusedly perhaps, but it is not….do not expect therefore me to articulate what I am going to say with the problems in topology about which Dr Lacan is talking at the moment.


The problem that I was trying to articulate, is to try to articulate in a rather consequential way with what Dr Lacan contributed about the montage of the drive, to try starting from the problem of the circuit of the drive, different torsions which appear to me can be located between the subject and the Other, different moments in which two or three torsions are articulated.


For me this remains a little hypothetical, but anyway I am going to try to retrace for you how things can like that be put in place. So then the drive, the instinctual circuit from which I will start, in order to try to advance, will be something rather enigmatic, will be something of the order of the invocatory drive and its reversal into a listening drive. I mean that the word listening drive, does not, I believe, exist does not exist anywhere as such, it remains altogether problematic.


And more precisely when I spoke about these ideas to Dr Lacan, I should say that it is more specifically on the subject of the problem of music and of trying to locate, to locate for a listener who listens to some music that touches him, let us say that has an effect on him, to locate the different moments because I am going to try therefore to convey to you now rather succinctly because I did not prepare a text, nor notes? So then excuse me if it’s a little improvised.


I imagine, if you wish, that, if you listen to some music, I am talking about a music that speaks to you or that ‘musics’ you, I start from the idea that, if you listen, the way in which you take this music, I will start from the idea that from the outset it is as an auditor that you function; that appears obvious, but in fact it is not so simple.


Namely, that I would say that if the music, at the very first moment – the moments that I am going to try to decorticate for the convenience of the presentation are not of course to be taken as chronological moments, but as moment which might be logical, and that I necessarily disarticulate them for the convenience of the presentation – if therefore music has an effect on you as a listener, I think one can say that it is because somewhere, as a listener, it is just as if it gave you an answer.


Now the problem begins with the fact that this answer therefore gives rise in you the antecedents of a questions which dwelt in you as Other, qua Other, qua listener who dwells in you without you knowing it; you discover therefore that there is here a subject somewhere which appears to have heard a question that is in you and which, would not only have heard it, but has been inspired by it, since music, the production of the ‘musicing’ subject, if you wish, would be the answer to this question that is supposed to dwell in you.


Therefore you already see that if one wished to articulate that to the desire of the Other: if there is in me, qua other, a desire, an unconscious lack, I have the testimony that the subject which receives this lack is not paralysed by it, it is not fading because of it, underneath, like the subject which is under the injunction of the che vuoi, but on the contrary is inspired by it and its inspiration, the music bears witness to it. Good, this is the starting point of what is to be noted.



Seminar final 06

February 15, 2012

Seminar final 06

Jacques Lacan


Seminar 3: Wednesday 21 December 1976

I am delighted that because of the holidays you are less numerous, at least I was delighted, I was delighted ahead of time. But I should tell you that today….


If in a systematic cutting up of a torus, a cutting up which has the result of producing a double Moebius strip, this cutting up is present here. The torus is there and to signify it, to distinguish it from the double loop, I am going with the same colour as the torus in question, draw for you a little ring (1) which has the effect of designating what is inside the torus and what is outside. [interchange 1&2]


If we cut out something of such a kind that here, if we were to cut the torus according to something (2) which, as I told you, has the result of furnishing a double Moebius strip, we can only do so by thinking of what is inside the torus – what is inside the torus by reason of the cut that we make on it – as conjoining the two cuts in such a way that the ideal plane which joins these two cuts should be a Moebius strip. 26


You see that here I cut doubly through the green line, I cut the torus. If we join these two cuts with the help of a stretched plane, we get a Moebius strip. That indeed is why that is here (1) and on the other hand what is here (2) constitutes a double Moebius strip. I say double, what does that mean? That means a Moebius strip which is redoubled; and a Moebius strip which is redoubled has as property – as I already showed you the last time – has as property, not of being two Moebius strips, but being a single Moebius strip which looks like this, – let us try to do better – which looks in this way like the result of the double cut of the torus. [double Moebius strip and Moebius strip]

你们看出,在此,我双重切割穿过这绿色的线,我切割这个凸起形状。假如我们连接这两个切割,靠着一个延伸层面的帮忙,我们获得一个莫比斯环带。那确实是为什么那第一图形这里。在另一方面,在第二图形这里的东西,组成一个双重的莫比斯环带。我说是双重,那是什么意思?那意味着一个重新加倍的莫比斯环带。而一个重新加倍的莫比斯环带具有一个特性—如同我上一次已经跟你们显示的,它具有一个特性,它并是有两个莫比斯环带组成,而是单一的莫比斯环带,它看起来像这样—让我们尝试做得更好些—它看起来像这个样子,像是这个凸起形状的双重切割的结果。 ( 双重的莫比斯环带跟莫比斯环带)。

The question is the following: is this double Moebius strip in this shape or that one. In other words, does it go – I am speaking about one of the loops – does it pass in front of the following loop, or does it pass behind? It is something which is obviously not unimportant from the moment that we proceed to this double cut, a double cut which has the result of determining this double Moebius strip.

问题如下: 这个双重的莫比斯环带是这种形状,还是那种形状?换句话说,它会经过—我正在谈论到其中一个环圈—它会经过以下的环圈的前面吗?或是从背后经过?这个东西,显而易见并非不重要,从我们继续到这个双重切割,一种双重切割,拥有决定这个双重莫比斯环带的结果。

I drew this figure very badly for you. Thanks to Gloria, I am going to try to draw it better: here is how it ought to be drawn. I do not know if you see it altogether clearly, but it is certain that the Moebius strip is redoubled in the way you see here. This is the point at which I am not really very satisfied about what I am in the process of showing you. I mean, since I spent the night cogitating on this business of the torus, I cannot say that what I am giving you here is very satisfying.


What appears as a result of what I called this double Moebius strip which I am asking you to put to the test, a test which you can experiment with in a simple way, with the simple condition of taking two sheets of paper and drawing on them a capital S, something like the following.


Be careful because this capital S demands to be drawn first with a small curve and then with a big curve. Just here the small curve and afterwards the big curve. If you cut out two of them on a sheet of double paper, you will see that by folding the two things that you will have cut onto a single sheet of paper, you will naturally obtain a junction of the number 1 sheet of paper with the number 2 sheet of paper, and of the number 2 sheet of paper with the number 1 sheet of paper, namely, that you will have what I designated just now as a double Moebius strip.


You can easily note that this double Moebius strip is cut – if I can express myself in this way – indifferently. I mean that what here is above, then passes beneath, then subsequently having passed beneath repasses above. It is a matter of indifference to make pass what first of all passed above, one can make it pass below. You will note easily that this double Moebius strip functions in either case. 28 Does that mean that here it is the same thing, I mean that from the same point of view one can put what is below above and inversely?


This indeed is in effect what the double Moebius strip realises. I apologise for adventuring into something which was not without some trouble for me, but it is certain that that is the way it is. If you work at producing in the same way as I presented this double Moebius strip to you, namely, by folding two pages, two pages thus cut out in such a way that the one is going to be conjoined to the second page and that inversely the second page is going to be conjoined to page 1, you will have exactly this result, this result about which you can note that one can make pass indifferently the one as I might say in front of the other, page 1 in front of page 2, and inversely page 2 in front of page 1.


What is the suspension which results from this highlighting, this highlighting of the fact that in the double Moebius strip what is in front from the same point of view can pass behind from the point of view which remains the same. This leads us to something which, I am encouraging you to it, is of the order of know-how, a know-how which is demonstrative in this sense that it does not happen without the possibility of an une-bévue.


For this possibility to be extinguished, it has to cease to be written, namely, that we should find a way, and in this case a dominant way, a way of distinguishing the two cases.
What is the way of distinguishing these two cases?


This interests us because the une-bévue is something which substitutes for what is founded as knowledge that one knows, the principle of knowledge that one knows without knowing it (sans le savoir). The ‘le’ here is brought to bear on something, the ‘le’ is a pronoun on this particular occasion which refers to knowledge itself qua, not as knowledge, but what to do about knowing. This indeed is why the unconscious lends itself to what I thought I should suspend under the title of the une-bévue. 29

这让我们感到興趣,因为这个「无意识」是某件替代我们知道作为知识基础的东西,我们知道但不知所以然的知识的原理。在此的这个「它 le」是跟某件事情有关系。这个「它 le」在这个特别的场合,是一个代名词。它提到知识的本身,不是作为知识,而是作为要如何处理有关知道。这确实是为什么无意识有助于我认为,在「无意识」的标题下,我应该悬置什么

The inside and the outside in this particular case, namely, as regards the torus, are they notions of structure or of form?


Everything depends on the conception that one has of space and I would say up to a certain point of what we highlight as the truth of space. There is certainly a truth of space which is that of the body. In this case, the body is something which can only be founded on the truth of space, which indeed is where the sort of asymmetry that I highlight has its foundations. This asymmetry depends on the fact that I designated as the same point of view. And this indeed is why what I wanted to introduce this year is something which is important for me. There is the same asymmetry not simply concerning the body, but concerning what I designated in terms of the Symbolic.


There is an asymmetry of the signifier and of the signified which remains enigmatic. The question that I would like to advance this year is exactly the following: is the asymmetry of the signifier and of the signified of the same nature as that of the container and the contained which is all the same something which has its function for the body? 30

能指与所指的一种不均称始终是个谜团。今年我想要提出的这个问题确实如下: 能指与所指定这种不均称,跟容器与被容物的特质,是属于相同的特质吗?对于身体而言,后者仍然是某件具有它的功用的东西。


拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻 05

February 15, 2012


Jacques Lacan


Seminar 2: Wednesday 14 December 1976

So then this leads us to consider that the hysteric whom everyone knows is just as well male as female, the hystorique5 if I may allow myself this slippage, we must consider in short that she is – I am feminising it on this occasion, but as you are going to see I am going to put my weight on the other side, that will largely suffice to demonstrate to you that I do not think that there are only feminine hysterics – the hystorique in short has only an unconscious to make her consist, it is the radically other. She even is not except qua other.

因此这个引导我们认为,众所周知的歇斯底里症患者,会是男性,也会是女性。假如容许有hystorique 跟torique 的口误,总之,我们必须认为她是歇斯底里症,在这个场合,我将它女性化。但是你们将会看出,我将要将我的重量放在另外一边,那就足够跟你们正面,我并不认为,只有女性的歇斯底里症患者,总之,hystorique 这个字词用一个无意识让她具有主要部分,就是激进的他者。她甚至没有排除作为她者。

5 Condensing ‘hysterique’ and ‘torique’

Well then, that’s the case for me. I also, I only have an unconscious. That is even why I think about it all the time. It has got to the point that – I can bear witness to you of it – it has got to the point that I think the universe toric and that it means nothing else, the fact is that I only consist in an unconscious of which, of course, I think night and day, which means that the une-bévue becomes inexact.


I make so few blunders that it is the same thing – naturally I make some from time to time, that is of little importance; I may happen to say in a restaurant ‘Mademoiselle is reduced to eating only shrimps à la nage’ [Mademoiselle en est réduit6 a ne manger que des écrevisses à la nage’], as long as that is where we are at, making an error of this kind, does not matter. When all is said and done, I am a perfect hysteric, namely, symptomless except from time to time this error of gender of the kind in question.


6 Instead of the feminine ‘réduite’

There is all the same, I would say, something that distinguishes the hysteric from me on this particular occasion. But I am going to try to present it to you. You can see how clumsy I am. There you are. That is two – I am colouring this one here to give the direction – that means a torus that links up with another one. Everyone knows, because I already indicated it the last time, that if you make a cut here and if you fold the torus you will obtain the following: something which is presented like that, namely, which reproduces what I called earlier the rod, except for the fact that what I drew earlier like that is there inside the rod.

我不妨说,在这个特别的场合,这仍然有某件东西,区别歇斯底里症患者跟我的不同。但是我将尝试将它呈现给你们。你们能够看出我是多么的笨拙。你们瞧。这是两个—我正在将这里的这个染色,为了给予方向。那意味着一个凸起形状,跟另外一个凸起形状连接。众所周知,因为上一次我已经指示过它,假如你们在此做一个切割,假如你们折叠这个凸起形状,你们将会获得以下:某件东西可像那样被呈现。换句话说,它复制我早先所谓的杆形线。除了这个事实: 我早先像那样所画的,是在这个杆形线里面。

The difference between the hysteric and me, and I who, in short, by dint of having an unconscious unity with my unconscious, the difference is this, it is that, in short, a hysteric is sustained in her form as rod, is sustained by a framework. This framework is in short distinct from her consciousness. This framework is her love for her father. All that we know about the cases enunciated by Freud concerning the hysteric, whether it is Anna O., Emmy von N., or any other of them, the other von R., for example, the setting, is something that I designated earlier as a chain, a chain of generations.


It is quite clear that from the moment that one is engaged along this path, there is no reason why it should stop, namely, that here there can be something else that constitutes a chain and that it is a question of seeing – this cannot go very far – of seeing how this on occasion will constitute a rod with respect to love, the love of the father in question.


That does not mean that it is settled and that one can here schematise the turning inside out of this torus around torus 2, let us call it that, that one can schematise it by a rod. There is perhaps something which creates an obstacle, and very specifically that’s what it’s all about; the fact that the unconscious chain stops at kinship relationships is yes or no founded, relationship of the child to his kin.


If I pose the question: ‘What is a hole?’, you have to trust me, this has a certain relationship to the question. A hole like that, of feeling, that is what this means when I crack the surface. By this I mean that by intuition, our hole is a hole in the surface. But a surface has a front and a back, as is well known, and that signifies therefore that a hole, is the hole in the front, plus the hole in the back. But since there exists a Moebius strip, which has the property of conjoining the front which is here with the back which is there, is the Moebius strip a hole?


It is obvious that it really seems to be so. Here there is a hole, but is it a true hole?
It is not at all clear, for a single reason, as I already pointed out, that a Moebius strip is nothing other than a cut, and that it is easy to see that, if this is defined as a front, it is a cut between a front and a back.


Because it is enough for you to consider this figure, it is quite easy to see that if here is the front, a back is there, since it is the back of this front and that, here, the cut is between a front and a back, thanks to which, in the Moebius strip, if we cut it in two, the front and the back as I might say become normal again namely, that when a Moebius strip cut in two, we are going to go over it, it is easy to imagine what is found, namely, that from the moment that there are two turns, there will be a front distinct from the back.


This indeed is why a Moebius strip is essentially capable of redoubling itself; and what must be remarked, is the fact that it redoubles itself in the following way which allows the passage. It is a real pity that I did not take precautions. Here is the Moebius strip as it redoubles itself, as it redoubles itself and shows itself to be compatible with a torus. This indeed is why I am attached to considering the torus as being capable of being cut out in terms of a Moebius strip.

这确实为什么莫比斯环带基本上能够反复加倍它自己。所必需要注意的是这个事实: 它以底下的容许通过的方式重复加倍它自己。实在很抱歉,我没有採取预先防范。在此是这个莫比斯环带重复加倍它自己的样子,它重复加倍它自己,然后显现它自己,跟一个凸起形状相和谐。这确实是为什么我倾向于将这个凸起形状,认为是能够用莫比斯环带的术语来切割。

And it is enough, it is enough for this – here is the torus – it is enough for there to be cut out in it not a Moebius strip, but a double Moebius strip. It is very precisely what is going to give us an image of what is involved in the link between the conscious and the unconscious.

这就足够,对于这一点,这就足够—在此是这个凸起形状—这就足够让它在里面被切割,不是成为一个莫比斯环带,而一个加倍的莫比斯环带。这确实是将会给我们一个意象: 在意识与无意识之间的这个连接,会牵涉到什么?

The conscious and the unconscious communicate and are both supported by a toric world this is the reason, this is the discovery, a discovery which was made by chance, not that Freud did not work desperately hard at it, but he did not say the last word on it. He specifically never enunciated the following, which is that the world is toric.

意识与无意识沟通,两者都受到一个凸起形状的世界的支持。这就是这个理由,这就是这个发现,这是一个偶然所做的发现。倒不是因为弗洛伊德殚精竭力地研究它,而是他并没有对它说出最后的定论。他明确地并没有表述如下: 这个世界上凸起形状的世界。

He believed, as every notion of the psyche implies, that there was something that I earlier dismissed by saying a loop, and another loop around the first, this one being in the middle, he believed that there was a vigilance, a vigilance that he called the psyche, a vigilance which reflected the cosmos point by point. In this he was aware of what is considered as a common truth, which is that the psyche is the reflection of a certain world.

他相信,如同精神的每个观念所暗示的,有某件我早先排除的东西,我将它视为一种圈套,另外一种圈套环绕第一个圈套,这个圈套处于中间。 弗洛伊德相信,有一个警觉,他所谓的精神的警觉,这一种警觉逐点地反映出宇宙。在这个宇宙,他知道是什么被认为是共同的真理。那就是,精神上某种世界的反映。

That I am enunciating this in terms, I repeat, of something tentative, because I do not see why I would be any more sure about what I am putting forward, even though there are many elements which give the feeling of it, and specifically from the outset what I put forward about the structure of the body, of the body considered as what I called a rod.


That the living being, every living being, is denominated as rod, is something that a certain number of studies, moreover crudely anatomical, have always seen themselves confirm. That the torus should be something which is presented as having two holes around which something consists, is something that is simply obvious. I repeat, it was not necessary to construct a lot of specifically microscopic apparatuses, it is something that has always been known, since simply people began to dissect, began to do the most macroscopic anatomy.


That one can cut the torus in such a way that it becomes a double turn Moebius strip is certainly to be noted. In a certain way, the torus in question is itself a hole and in a certain way represents the body. But that this should be confirmed by the fact that this Moebius strip which I already chose to express the fact that the conjunction of a front and a back is something which symbolises rather well the union of the unconscious and the conscious, is something which is worthwhile remembering.


Can we consider a sphere as a hole in space? This is obviously very suspect. It is very suspect because this pre-supposes, it pre-supposes something that is not self-evident, the plunging into space. It is equally true for the torus, and that is why it is by dividing the torus into two sheets, if I can express myself in that way, into two sheets capable of making a double turn, that we rediscover the surface, namely, something that to our eyes is more assured, is more assured in any case to found what is involved in a hole.


It is clear that it is not today or yesterday that I made use of these concatenations. Already to symbolise the circuit, the cutting of desire and demand, I made use of this, namely, of the torus. I had distinguished two modes of it, namely, what went around the torus, and on the other hand what went around the central hole. In this respect the identification of the demand to what is presented like this, and of desire to what is presented like that, was altogether significant.


There is something that I pointed out the last time, namely, this, which consists in a torus, within a torus. If you mark these two tori, the two of them, by a cut, by folding them back, by folding back the two cuts, if I can express myself in that way, concentrically, you will make what is inside come to the outside, and inversely, what is outside will come inside. It is very precisely why I am struck by the fact that the highlighting, as envelopment, of what is inside is something that is not without relevance to psychoanalysis.


That psychoanalysis is attached to putting outside what is inside, namely, the unconscious, is something which obviously has its price, has its price, but is not without posing some questions. Because if we suppose that there are three tori, to call things by their name, that there are three tori that are specifically the Real, the Imaginary and the Symbolic, what are we going to see by turning inside out, as I might say, the Symbolic


Everyone knows that this is how things will present themselves and that the Symbolic seen from the outside as torus, will find itself, with respect to the Imaginary and the Real, will find itself having to pass above this one which is above and below this one which is below. But what do we see by proceeding as we usually do by a cut, by a split to turn the Symbolic inside out?


This Symbolic turned inside out in this way,…here is what the Symbolic turned inside out in this way will give: it will give a completely different arrangement of what I called the Borromean knot, namely, that the Symbolic will totally envelop, by turning the symbolic torus inside out, will totally envelop the Imaginary and the Real.

这个符号界以这种方式由内在向外翻转、、、在此就是符号界以这种方式,由内在向外翻转所给予的: 它给予一个完全不同的安排,对于我所谓的博罗米恩环结。换句话说,符号界完全地涵盖,将这个符号界的凸起形状由内在向外翻转,它完全涵盖想象界与实在界。

This indeed is why the use of the cut with respect to what is involved in the Symbolic presents something which risks in short, at the end of a psychoanalysis, of provoking something which might be specified as a preference given above all to the unconscious. I mean that, if things are such that things are going a bit better like that as regards the life of each one, namely, to put the accent on this function, this function of the knowledge of the une-bévue by which I translated the unconscious, things can effectively be better organised. But it is all the same a structure of an essentially different nature to the one that I qualified as Borromean knot.


The fact that the Imaginary and the Real should be entirely included, in short, in something which has come from the practice of psychoanalysis itself, is something which gives rise to a question. There is here, all the same, a problem. I repeat, this is linked to the fact that it is not when all is said and done the same thing, the structure of the Borromean knot and what you will see there. Someone who has experienced a psychoanalysis is something which marks a passage, which marks a passage, – of course this presupposes that my analysis of the unconscious qua founding the function of the Symbolic is completely acceptable.


It is nevertheless a fact, the fact is apparently, and I can confirm it, apparently the fact of having gone through an analysis is something which cannot be in any case restored to the previous state, except of course by carrying out another cut, one that would be equivalent to a counter-psychoanalysis. This indeed is why Freud insisted that psychoanalysts at least should undertake what is usually called two tranches, namely, to carry out a second time the cut that I designate here as being what restores the Borromean knot in its original form.




February 15, 2012



So then there are obviously two things, there are two kinds of holes; the hole which opens out onto what is called the outside, puts in question what is involved in space. Space seems to be extension when we are dealing with Descartes. But the body founds for us the idea of another kind of space.


This torus in question does not immediately seem to be what is called a body, but you are going to see that it is enough to turn it inside out, not in the way that one turns a sphere inside out, because a torus is turned inside out in a quite different way. If here, for example, I set about imagining that it is a sphere which is inside another sphere, I do not get anything which resembles what I am going to try to get you sense now. If I make a hole in the other sphere, that sphere is going to come out like a small globular bell.


But it is a torus, it is a torus, namely, that is going to behave differently. [hole]


这跟美国自然主义者索罗在华尔腾湖the Walden 的结论有些类似:



这使我想到卡尔、荣格Carl Jung 晚年对于神秘主义与炼金术的著迷,还将它与移情心理学综合并论,洋洋洒洒的钜作,充满了一大堆神灵的专门术语,令人难以卒读。他真的在里面探究出什么值得让人相信,令人响往的领域吗?


拉康晚年的精神分析论述,已经点出精神分析家的目标是无限的爱endless love,追寻的是绝对的差异absolute difference,并且将无意识从实在界the Real拉出来,放置在符号界,想象界,与实在界的交会地带,再用病征,作为杆形线贯穿及昇华为圣征,另创一个人为想象的「真实界」the true,以示跟原先的自然的「实在界」有所差异。这样的凭借想象界回归符号界的真实界,跟大乘佛教的的安乐净土的下迴向众生界,倒真有异曲同工之妙。







February 13, 2012

• 2012-02-11 17:52:06 无之否定 (将自我置于自我理想之上)
不知雄伯在上面讨论中言及的“打破无意识冲动的强迫重复”是否就是抗拒死亡驱力的意思?我所理解的齐泽克的论述是 只有顺从死亡驱力才是行动 如安提戈涅般行动才能悬置和颠覆符号界 这也就是“不要向你的欲望妥协”的精神分析伦理学

It is a very interesting question because it would result in certain remarks that have been advanced that the end of analysis should be to identify oneself to the analyst. For my part, I do not think so. But anyway this is what Balint maintains, and it is very surprising. To what then does one identify oneself at the end of analysis? Is one supposed to identify oneself to one’s unconscious? This is what I do not believe. I do not believe it, because the unconscious remains – I say ‘remains’, I am not saying ‘remains eternally’, because there is no eternity – remains the Other. It is the Other with a capital O that is at stake in the unconscious. I do not see how one could give a sense to the unconscious, except by situating it in this Other, the bearer of signifiers, which pulls the strings of what is imprudently called, imprudently because it is here that there arises the question of what the subject is from the moment that it so entirely depends on the Other.

这是一个非常有趣的问题,因为这会造成曾经被提出的某种的谈论: 精神分析结束时,自己应该认同于分析家。而我而言,我并不这样认为。但是无论如何,这是巴林特主张的观点,令人大为惊奇。 精神分析结束时,我们应该认同于什么? 我们应该认同于自己的无意识吗? 这是我并不相信的东西,我并不相信它,因为无意识始终是大他者–我说‘始终是’ ,我并没有正在说‘永远是’,因为没有什么是永远存在。这个大写字母O的大他者在无意识里岌岌可危。我并不明白,我们如何能够理解无意识的意义,除了就是将无意识定位在大他者,各种能指的载负者。他在背后操控一些不谨慎被称谓的东西,不谨慎是因为在这个地方,主体是什么的问题被产生,从主体如此完全地依赖大他者的时刻开始。

在论及超越善时 齐泽克基本是将精神分析伦理学以一种更符合伦理甚至是政治介入的维度来重新论述 下面是我的理解

拉康说 上帝死了 我们做什么都不被允许了 是不是说我们所有的行动与选择皆来自于对禁忌的违反呢 以此为前提 齐泽克似乎是想将超我禁令从禁忌中分离出来 然后 他称善是被超我规定的 而超我具有淫荡的本质 他规定了善 并暗中准许你的违反 比如香烟广告的 “吸烟有害健康 但是我仍然……” 这或许就是我们社会充满潜规则的原因?这就像是问 你是选择自由 还是……?于是我们只能选择自由 于是我们丧失了自由 这大概就是齐泽克说要超越善的原因 并且他强调仅仅是超越善 不是要超越恶 大概恶有部分是由本我决定的 所以如果超越了恶 就会有种种无意识冲动表现出来?


齐泽克说行动处于两种死驱力之间(拉康在哪说过两种死驱力么?)我的理解 一种就是超越善的 一种就是超越恶的 也就是说行动就是打破符号界 但是不进入实在界 或者伦理就是打破禁令 但不打破禁忌

不过按我的理解 寻求实在界 就要追着对象a 就要追着剩余快感 而超我禁令也是让我们追着剩余快感 区别难道是前一个剩余快感是我们无法捕捉的 而后一个是我们被允许获取的?但是这两者 实在难以区分 禁令与禁忌 在技术上也难以区分

拉康在精神分析伦理学的16章,「处于两次死亡之间的安提戈涅」Antigone between two deaths 讨论到这个主题。安提戈涅因为坚持自己对于家庭伦理的信仰,要埋葬自己的兄长,虽然他被新的执政王判决背叛城邦罪名,而暴尸野外。安提戈涅自己因而被判终身囚禁石室,形同完全丧失符号界的尊严,但是她的生命的光辉,真实生命的显现,则是照亮于符号界的死亡与身体的实际死亡之间。
至于追逐对象a (或小客体),跟追逐剩余快感,并不是寻求实在界,而是一种误识,主体自恋地将某些的对象a,或剩余快感,误识为实在界的欠缺的再现而且追逐,结果会是一种幻见,所追逐到的仅是对象a,或是剩余快感,但永远不是实在界。这里跟禁令于禁忌没有什么关系,而是实在界的无意识与符号界的主体中间,有一道划槓的阻隔,无法直接跨越,而必须回溯想象界,才有可能。

拉康晚期则是将无意识从实在界,提出来放置在符号界,想象界,及实在界之间,然后以病征symptom作为调和,凭借启蒙enlightenment与从空无中创造ex nihilo,而昇华成为圣征sinthome,这是一个新的真实界the true。

区分真实界the true 与实在界 the real 的差异,是拉康精神分析论述的一个重要转折。也就是精神分析家的无限的爱endless love 所在,使拉康的精神分析论述成为不仅是一种知识的理解,而是真理的追求。

我觉得既然拉康的理论作为一个心理结构 保证了我们无法面对主体的空无 那我们也不妨信仰福柯对非理性主体(实在界)的追求 毕竟我们在实在界前总是会停下脚步 那么即使福柯的理论不能作为一种放之四海而皆准的伦理规范来表达 但是对于个人的修行来说 仍然会处于两种驱力之间 与齐泽克的区别仅仅是对待 冲向实在界的失败 这件事的态度上

我的理解实在浅陋 没什么学术素养 只会用些比较白的话来描述 雄伯提的问题大多是我难以理解的 我只是曾经迷恋黄老 以为自己可以直面自身主体空无的虚无主义者 这个“无之否定”就是当时读道德经时琢磨的 以为即使所有的价值都可以相对 对无的否定还是无法得到有 无之否定就是无法被辩证法捕捉的那个东西(实在界?)直到读到齐泽克的“我们宁愿欲望虚无,也不愿什么都不欲望” 开始有些改变 不过最后似乎又回到了虚无主义的老路 不知是喜剧 悲剧 还是闹剧呢

「人宁可以空无为目标,而不能没有目标」Man would sooner have the void for his purpose than be void of purpose. 这句话原先是哲学家尼采Nietzsche 在「道德系谱学」The Genealogy of Morals 结论时的论断。意味着,人无论如何必须追求生命的意义与价值,而不能像动物般无目的地出生与死亡。问题是什么是生命的意义与价值?这些问题会牵涉到一个更迫切的问题:人作为生命的主体是什么?作为具有身体的我,就是我吗?还是作为具有灵魂,或无意识的我,才是我?妥协于现实社会,以心为形役的我,就是我吗?还是坚持心灵,灵魂,或无意识自在的理想的我,才是我?

Seminar final 04

February 13, 2012

Seminar final 04


Jacques Lacan


Seminar 2: Wednesday 14 December 1976

No need for commentaries. Since the last time I spoke to you about something, like that, which is not one sphere in another one, which is what is called a torus, the result is – this is what I wanted to indicate to you by that, but it was allusive – that no result of science is a progress. Contrary to what is imagined, science goes round in circles, and we have no reason to think that the people who used flint-stone had any less science than us.


Psychoanalysis notably is not a progress, since what I want to indicate to you, since after all I remain close to this subject, psychoanalysis notably is not a progress, it is a practical approach to feeling better. This feeling better, it must be said, does not rule out being brutalised…


Everything indicates, with the index of suspicion that I bring to bear on the all (tout), that in fact there is no whole (tout) that is not riddled and in bits and pieces. The only thing that counts, is whether a pièce (piece, coin) has or not an exchange value. It is the only definition of the whole. A pièce is valid in every circumstance, that means, that only means the qualified circumstance like every valuing, homogeneity of value. The whole is only a notion of value, the whole, is what is valid in its genus, what another of the same type of unit in its genus is worth.


We are advancing here very gently towards the contradiction of what I call the une bévue. The une bévue is what is exchanged despite the fact that it is not worth the unit in question. The une bévue is a false whole. Its type, as I might say, is the signifier, the typical signifier, namely, for example, there is nothing more typical than the same and the other. I mean that there is no more typical signifier than these two enunciations. Another unit is similar to the other. All that sustains the difference between the same and the other is that the same is the same materially. The notion of matter is fundamentalby the fact that it founds the same. Anything that is not founded on matter is matériel-ne-ment 2 a fraud.

我们在此非常温和地前进,朝向我所谓的「无意识」的这个悖论。这个「无意识」就是所被交换的东西,尽管这个事实: 它并值得受到值疑的这个单位。这个「无意识」是一个虚假的「全部」。我不妨说,它的种类是这个能指,这个典型的能指。换句话说,譬如,没有一样东西比这个相同及另外一个更加典型的东西。我的意思是,没有一个能指比这两种表达更加典型。另外一个单位类同于另外一个单位。所有维持这个相同及另外一个的差异,相同是材料部分相同。物质的观念基本上是这个事实:它作为相同的事实。任何不以物质作为基础的东西,是非物质,是一种欺骗。

Material presents itself to us as corps-sistance3, I mean under the subsistence of the body, namely, of what is consistent, what holds together in the manner of what one can call a cunt (con), otherwise called a unit. There is nothing more unique than a signifier, but in this limited sense that it is only similar to another emission of signifier. It returns to value, to exchange.


It signifies the whole, which means, it is the sign of the whole. The sign of the whole is the signified, which opens up the possibility of exchange. I underline on this occasion what I said about the possible, there will always be a time – that is what this means – when it will cease to write itself, where the signified will no longer hold up as founding the same value, material exchange. For the same value is the introduction of the lie, there is exchange, but not materiality itself.


What is the other as such? It is this materiality that I spoke about just now, namely, that I pinpointed as the sign mimicking the other. There is only a series of others, all the same qua unit, between which a bévue is always possible, namely, that it will not be perpetuated, that it will cease as a bévue. There you are. All of these are first truths, but I think I had to remind you of them.


Man thinks. That does not mean that he is made only for that. But what is manifest, is that this is the only valid thing he does, because valid means – and nothing else, it is not a scale of values, a scale of values, as I remind you, turns round in circles – valid means nothing other than the fact that it involves the submission of use value to exchange value.

人会思想,那并不意味着,他进是为思想而诞生。但是显而易见地,这是唯一他所做的实用的东西,因为实用意味着:它并不是别的,它并不是一系列的价值,如我提醒你们的,一系列环绕着圆圈打转的价值。实用实实在在意味着这个事实: 它牵涉到实用价值屈服于交换价值。

What is patent, is that the notion of value is inherent to this system of the torus and the notion of something of an une-bévue in my title of this year only means that – one could just as well say the contrary – man knows more than he believes he knows. But the substance of this knowledge, the materiality which is beneath, is nothing other than the signifier in so far as it has meaning-effects. Man parle-être4 as I said which means nothing other than that he speaks signifier, with which the notion of being is confused.

专利的东西,就是价值的观念是凸起形状的这个系统本质上的东西。今天我的研讨班标题,「无意识」的某件东西的观念仅是意味着: 我们很有可能说得恰恰相反–人们知道超过他相信他知道的。但是这个知识的物质,属于底下的这个物质,实实在在就是能指,因为它拥有意义的效应。如无所说,人作为言说的存在。这意味着实实在在就是他言说能指,生命实存的观念跟他言说能指混淆。

This is real. Real or true? Everything is posed, at this tentative level, as if the two words were synonyms. The appalling thing is that they are not everywhere so. The true is what one believes to be such; faith and even religious faith, is the true that has nothing to do with the real. Psychoanalysis, it must be clearly said turns round in the same circle. It is the modern form of faith, of religious faith. Adrift, that is where the true is when the real is what is at stake.


All that because manifestly – since the time, we would have known it, if it were not manifest – manifestly there is no knowing (connaissance). There is only some kind of knowledge (savoir) in the sense that I said at the outset, namely, that we make mistakes…a bévue, that is what is at stake, philosophy going round in circles. It is a matter of substituting a different sense for the term world system that we must indeed preserve, even though as regards this world we can say nothing about man, except that he has fallen from it. We are going to see how, and that has a great deal of relationship with the central hole of the torus.


There is no progress, because there cannot be any. Man goes round in circles if what I say about his structure is true, because the structure, the structure of man is toric. Not at all that I affirm that it is so. I am saying that one can try to see the state of affairs, this all the more since general topology encourages us to do so. The world system up to now has always been spheroidal. Perhaps we might change! The world has always been painted, up to the present, like that, as regards what men have enunciated, has been painted inside a bubble.

并没有进步存在,因为不可能有任何的进步。人绕著圆圈打转,假如我所说的,关于人的结构属实的话。因为这个结构,人的结构是是凸起形状。根本不是因为我肯定它是这样,我是在说,我们能个尝试看出事情的这种状态。这更加是凸起形状,因为拓扑图形鼓励我们这样做。迄今的这个世界系统总是球形的形态。或许我们可能改变! 迄今,这个世界总是被描绘,像那种方式,关于人所表达的东西,这个世界总是在一个泡沫里面被描绘。

The living being considers himself as a ball, but with time he all the same realised that he was not a ball, a bubble. Why not recognise that he is organised, I mean what one sees of the living body, that he is organised at what I called the other day a rod.


There you are, I am trying to draw it like that. It is obvious that this is how there ends up what we know about the body as consistent. This is called ecto, that endo and then around, there is meso. That is how it is made; here there is the mouth and here the contrary, the posterior mouth. Only this rod is nothing other than a torus. The fact that we are toric goes rather well in short with what I called the other day, rod (trique). It is an elision of
the o: t()rique.

你们瞧,我正在尝试像那样地描绘。显而易见地,这是我们所知道的,关于身体作为一贯性结果的样子。这个被称为是「外在」,那个是「内在」,然后翻转,这是「中间」。那就是它被形成的样子,在此有这个嘴巴,在此恰恰相反,这个后面的嘴巴。只有这个杆线形状,实实在在就是一个凸起形状。总之,我们都是凸起形状,这个事实非常吻合我前天所谓的杆形线 (trique)。这个「o: t()rique. 」的忽略。


Seminar final 03

February 13, 2012

Seminar final 03

拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻 03

Jacques Lacan


Seminar 1: Wednesday 16 November 1976

It would be enough for you to take a simple tube, the tube of a small tyre, and apply yourself to testing it, you will see then that the tyre lends itself to this way of swelling, as I might say, into the egress offered by the cut, the cut that we have made here, and which, if I were to continue, supposing that the cut comes here, comes to fold back here, to be inverted, as one might say, what you are going to get here is something which is different, different in appearance to the torus; for it is well and truly a torus all the same, even though, seen this time in section, it is well and truly a torus exactly as if we were to cut here the torus that is in question. I think that it will not escape you that by folding this back until we have completed the hole that we have made in the torus, it is well and truly the figure which follows that we will get. [cut]


This does not seem to command, as I might say, your consent. It is nevertheless quite tangible. It is enough to make an attempt at it.


You have here 2 tori one of which represents what has happened, while the other is the original. If you, on one of these tori coupled in the s this is going to lead us to something else – on one of these coupled tori, you engage in the manipulation that I have explained for you here, namely, that you make a cut, you will obtain this something which is expressed as follows, namely, that these tori being coupled, you have inside one of these tori, another torus, a torus of the same kind as the one that I have drawn here.


What this designates, is that here, you can clearly see that what regards the first torus has something that I called its inside, something in the torus has been turned inside out, which is exactly in continuity with what remains of the inside in this first torus.


This torus is turned inside out in the sense that henceforth its inside is what goes to the outside, while in order to designate the latter as being the one around which there is turned inside out the one here, we see that the one that I designated here, has for its part remained unchanged, namely, that it has its first outside, its outside as it is posed in the loop, it has its outside always in the same place. 9


There had therefore been a turning inside out of one of them. I think that, even though these things are very inconvenient, even very inhibiting to imagine, I think all the same that I have conveyed to you, conveyed what is at stake on this particular occasion. I mean that I have made myself understood, I hope, as regards what is at stake.


It is altogether remarkable that, what is here [Fig. I-4] does not – even though it is literally a torus – does not have the same shape, namely, that it presents itself as a rod [trique]. It is a rod which nonetheless remains for all that a torus. I mean that as you have already seen here, what has been formed, is something that has nothing to do with the first presentation, the one that knots the two tori [Fig. I-5a].


It is not the same sort of chain by reason of the turning inside out of what I call on this occasion the first torus. [cut] But as compared to this first torus, as compared to the same, what you have is something that I draw like that, with respect to the same, the torus-rod – if we remember this thing, the torus-rod comes here, namely, that in order to support things, the hole which is to be made in the torus, the one that I designated here, can be made in any locus whatsoever of the torus, up to and including cutting the torus here, because then it is quite manifest that this cut torus can be turned inside out in the same way and that it will be by joining two cuts that we will obtain this aspect.


In other words by cutting the torus here, you get what I called the presentation as a rod in the same way, namely, that something that will manifest itself in the torus by two cuts will allow a folding over exactly in the way as by joining the two cuts – and not by forming the single cut, the one that I made here – it is in joining two cuts that we obtain this rod which I am calling by this term, even though it is a torus.


Here you have what today, and I agree it is not easy to digest, but what I would like the next time, namely, on the 2nd Tuesday of December what I would like to hear the next time from one of you, is the way in which these two modes of folding of the torus being joined to a third which for its part is the following:


Supposing that we have a torus in another torus, the same operation is conceivable for the 2 tori, namely, that from a cut made in this one and from a different distinct cut, since it is not the same torus, made in that one. It is in this case quite clear – I will leave you to conceive it – at the folding back of these two tori will give us the same rod, except for the fact that in the rod there will be an analogous content, except for the fact that for the two cases, this time, the inside will be outside and the same for this one; I mean for the torus which is inside.

假如我们在另外一个凸起形状,拥有一个凸起形状。相同的运作能够被构想,对于这两个凸起形状。换句话说,从在这个凸起形状,及一个不同的清楚的切割,因为这并不是相同的凸起形状,在那个凸起形状所形成。我将让你们去构想它—在这两个凸起形状的往后折叠,将会给予我们相同的杆形线,除了这个事实: 在这个杆形线,将会有一个类似的内容,除了这个事实:就这两个情况而言,这一次,这个内在,将会是外在,对于这个凸起形状,我指的是在内在的这个凸起形状。

How, I will ask you the question, how identify – because it is distinct – how identify hysterical identification, the so-called loving identification to the father and the identification that I would call neutral, the one which is neither one nor the other, which is the identification to a particular trait, to a trait that I called – that is how I translated the einziger Zug – that I called any trait whatsoever?

我将询问你们这个问题,如何辨认—因为它是显而易见的—如何辨认歇斯底里的认同,跟父亲的这个所谓的爱的认同,我将称为中立的认同,既不是这个,也不是那个的认同。这就是对于一个特别的特征的认同,认同我所谓的特征—那就是我为何将它翻译 einziger Zug,我称之我任何特征?

How divide up these three inversions of homogenous tori therefore in their practice, and what is more which maintain the symmetry, as I might say, between one torus and another, how divide them up, how designate in a homologous fashion paternal identification, hysterical identification, identification to a trait which is simply the same? There is the question on which I would like, that you would be good enough to engage with the next time.




February 11, 2012


Final Session

Jacques Lacan


Seminar 1: Wednesday 16 November 1976

The metaphor in use for what is called access to the real is what is called the model. There is someone called Kelvin who was very interested in that, he was even called Lord, Lord Kelvin. He considered that science was something in which a model was functioning and which allowed, with the help of this model, to foresee what would be the results, the results of the functioning of the Real.


One has recourse therefore to the Imaginary to give oneself an idea of the Real. You should write then se faire, ‘to give oneself an idea’, I said, write it as ‘sphere’ (sphère) to clearly understand what the imaginary means.

我们因此诉诸于想象界给予我们自己一个实在界的观念。你们因此应该书写为「se faire」「给予自己一个观念」。我说,书写它作为「球状图形」,清楚地了解想象界是什么意思。

What I put forward in my Borromean knot of the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real, led me to distinguish these three spheres and then, afterwards, re-knot them. I had therefore to go from these three balls – there are dates, I enunciated the Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real in ‘54, I entitled an inaugural lecture with these three names which have become in short through me what Frege calls proper nouns (noms propres). To found a proper noun, is something that elevates your own name (nom propre) a little bit. The only proper name in all of that, is mine.


Lacan’s extension to the Symbolic, to the Imaginary and to the Real is what allows these three terms to consist. I am not particularly proud of it. But I after all noticed that to consist meant something, namely, that one had to speak about body; there is a body of the Imaginary, a body of the Symbolic – this is lalangue – and a body of the Real about which we do not know how it comes out.


It is not simple, not that the complication comes from me, it is in what we are dealing with. It is because I was, as someone or other has said, confronted with the idea that Freud’s unconscious supports, that I tried, not to answer for it, but to respond to it in a sensible way, namely, by not imagining that this avision – what Freud glimpsed, that’s what that means – that this avision concerns something which is supposed to be inside each one, of each of those who make up a crowd and who believe that they are by this fact a unity.


This notion of crowd, which Massen-psychologie clearly means, has been translated as Psychologie collective et analyse du moi. There is nothing to be done with that. Freud may well have explicitly started from what Gustave Lebon specifically call psychologie des foules, it is translated by psychologie collective, a collection, a collection of pearls no doubt, each person being one of them, even though what is at stake, is to account for the existence, for the existence in this crowd of something which qualifies itself as ego.


What can this ego be? It is in trying to explain this for you, that I tried to imagine this year the usage of what is called a topology. A topology, such as you can grasp simply by opening anything at all called General Topology, a topology is always founded on a torus, even if this torus is at times a Klein bottle, for a Klein bottle is a torus, a torus that crosses itself – I spoke about that a long time ago.


There you are. Here, you see that in this torus, there is something which represents an absolute inside when one is in the void, in the hollow that a torus may constitute. This torus can be a cord, no doubt, but a cord itself can twist, and there is something which can be drawn as being the inside of the cord. In this respect you have only to unpack what is enunciated as a knot in a special literature. 6


So then there are obviously two things, there are two kinds of holes; the hole which opens out onto what is called the outside, puts in question what is involved in space. Space seems to be extension when we are dealing with Descartes. But the body founds for us the idea of another kind of space.


This torus in question does not immediately seem to be what is called a body, but you are going to see that it is enough to turn it inside out, not in the way that one turns a sphere inside out, because a torus is turned inside out in a quite different way. If here, for example, I set about imagining that it is a sphere which is inside another sphere, I do not get anything which resembles what I am going to try to get you sense now. If I make a hole in the other sphere, that sphere is going to come out like a small globular bell.


But it is a torus, it is a torus, namely, that is going to behave differently. [hole]




February 11, 2012


Jacques Lacan


Seminar 1: Wednesday 16 November 1976

There is a kind of notice which sets out…were you able to read it? What did you make of it? L’insu que sait, all the same that’s a bit of blah-de-blah, it equivocates; L’insu que sait, and then I gave a translation of the Unbewusst, I said that there was, in the sense of the use in French of the partitive, that there was de l’une-bévue1. It is just as good a way of translating the Unbewusst as any other, as the unconscious, in particular which, in French – and in German also moreover – equivocates with unconsciousness.

有某种的通知被送出、、、你们能够阅读吗?你们如何来解释它?L’insu que sait,
这仍然是有点胡言乱语,它模糊暧昧,L’insu que sait, 然后我给予翻译这个「Unbewusst」.我说,从法文的区格的意义而言,也有翻译为de l’une-bévue。 这个翻译跟Unbewesst 同样传神。因为「无意识界」跟「无意识状态」有模糊暧昧的地方,特别是在法文,而且在德文。

The unconscious has nothing to do with unconsciousness. So then why not quite calmly translate it by l’une-bévue. All the more so because this has immediately the advantage of highlighting certain things; why do we feel obliged in the analysis of dreams, which constitutes a bévue like anything else, like a parapraxis, except for the fact that there is something in which one recognises oneself. You recognise yourself in the witticism, because the witticism depends on what I called lalangue, you recognise yourself in the witticism, you slip into it and on this Freud made some remarks that are not unimportant.

无意识界跟无意识状态没有丝毫关系。因此为什么不平和地将它翻译为l’une-bévu?这样翻译会更加平和,因为这样会具有强调某些东西的利益。为什么在梦的精神分析,我们觉得被强迫?这就形成一种意识 bévue ,就像任何其他一件东西,就像一种失误。除了这个事实: 有某件东西,你在里面体认出自己。你在机智语里体认出你自己,因为机智语依靠我所谓的语素 lalangue,你们在机智语里,体认出你们自己。你们陷入自己说的机智语里,对于这一点,弗洛伊德有一些并非是不重要的谈论。

I mean that the advantage of the witticism for the unconscious is all the same linked to something specific which involves the acquisition of lalangue. Moreover, should we be saying that to analyse a dream we should stick to what happened the previous day?

我的意思是,对于无意识界,机智语仍然跟某件明确的东西息息相关。这牵涉到语素 lalangue 的获得。而且,我们难道应该说: 为了分析一个梦,我们应该坚持前一天所发生的?

This is not self-evident. Freud made a rule of it, but it would be as well all the same to see that there are many things which, not alone can go further back, but which depend on what could be called the very fabric of the unconscious. Also, is the parapraxis something which ought to be analysed strictly according to what happened, not the previous day, but this time during the day, this is something that really should be questioned.


This year, let us say that with this L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue, I am trying to introduce something which goes further than the unconscious. What relationship is there between this something which must be admitted, that we have an inside that is called as best one can, psyche for example, we even see Freud writing endo, endo-psychical; it is not self-evident that the psyche should be endo; it is not self-evident that this endo should be endorsed.

今年,让我们说,由于这个L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue,,我正在尝试介绍比无意识界更深入的某件东西。在这个被承认的某件东西,我们拥有尽可能被成为里面的东西,譬如,精神。我们甚至看到弗洛伊德书写「里面」,里面的精神。这并不是自明代,精神应该是「里面」。这并不是自明的,这个「里面」应该被背书。

What relationship is there between this endo, this inside and what we usually call identification? It is this in short that, under this title which is as it were made for this particular occasion, this is what I would like to put under this title. Because it is clear that identification is what is crystallised in an identity. Moreover this fication in French is in German enunciated differently, Identifizierung, says Freud, in a place where I went to rediscover it, because I did not remember that I had done a seminar on Identifizierung. I did not remember, I remembered all the same what was in this chapter, I did not know that I had consecrated a year to it.

在这个「里面」与我们通常所谓的「认同」之间,有怎样的关系?总之,就是这个关系,在这个标题之下,因为这个标题是为了这个特别的场合而定出的。这是我想要放置在这个标题之下的东西。因为显而易见地,认同在一种身份里被具体表现。而且,法文的这个fication,在德文被表述的方式不同。弗洛伊德说是Identifizierung,在我前去重新发现它的地方。因为我并不记得,我曾经发表过一个探讨「认同」的研讨班。我并不记得,我仍然记得,这个章节所讲的东西。 我并不知道,我曾经奉献一年来探讨它。

But I remembered that for Freud there are at least three modes of identification, namely, the identification to which he reserves – I don’t really know why – the qualification of love. Love is the qualification that he gives to the identification to the father. What is it on the other hand that he advances in terms of an identification brought about by participation?


He calls that, he pinpoints that as hysterical identification. And then there is a third identification which is the one that he constructs from a trait, a trait that formerly – I had all the same held onto the memory of it without knowing that I had done a whole seminar on identification – from a trait that I called ‘unary’, this unary trait interests us because, as Freud underlines, it is not something particularly connected to a beloved person. A person can be indifferent and a unary trait chosen as constituting the basis of an identification. It is not indifferent, since this is how Freud believes that he is able to account for the identification to the Führer’s little moustache which everyone knows played an important role.


It is a very interesting question because it would result in certain remarks that have been advanced that the end of analysis should be to identify oneself to the analyst. For my part, I do not think so. But anyway this is what Balint maintains, and it is very surprising. To what then does one identify oneself at the end of analysis? Is one supposed to identify oneself to one’s unconscious? This is what I do not believe. I do not believe it, because the unconscious remains – I say ‘remains’, I am not saying ‘remains eternally’, because there is no eternity – remains the Other. It is the Other with a capital O that is at stake in the unconscious. I do not see how one could give a sense to the unconscious, except by situating it in this Other, the bearer of signifiers, which pulls the strings of what is imprudently called, imprudently because it is here that there arises the question of what the subject is from the moment that it so entirely depends on the Other.

这是一个非常有趣的问题,因为这会造成曾经被提出的某种的谈论: 精神分析结束时,自己应该认同于分析家。而我而言,我并不这样认为。但是无论如何,这是巴林特主张的观点,令人大为惊奇。 精神分析结束时,我们应该认同于什么? 我们应该认同于自己的无意识吗? 这是我并不相信的东西,我并不相信它,因为无意识始终是大他者–我说‘始终是’ ,我并没有正在说‘永远是’,因为没有什么是永远存在。这个大写字母O的大他者在无意识里岌岌可危。我并不明白,我们如何能够理解无意识的意义,除了就是将无意识定位在大他者,各种能指的载负者。他在背后操控一些不谨慎被称谓的东西,不谨慎是因为在这个地方,主体是什么的问题被产生,从主体如此完全地依赖大他者的时刻开始。

So then in what does this mapping out called analysis consist? Might it be or might it not be, to identify oneself, to identify oneself while taking some insurance, a kind of distance, to identify oneself to one’s symptom? I put forward that the symptom could be – this can be cashed in, it is pretty common – it can be the sexual partner. This is along the line of what I put forward,- put forward without it making you scream like an osprey – it is a fact, I put forward that the symptom taken in this sense is, to employ the term knowing (connaître), is what you know, it is even what you know best, without that going very far.


Knowing has strictly only this sense. It is the only form of knowing taken in the sense in which it has been put forward that it is enough for a man to sleep with a woman for us to be able to say that he knows her, and indeed inversely. Since despite the fact that I strive for it, it is a fact that I am not a woman, I do not know what is involved in terms of what a woman knows about a man.

知道严谨来说,仅有这个意义。这是知道的唯一的形式,以这个意义理解。曾经有人提出,只要男人跟女人睡觉,我们就能够说: 他知道她。的确,这句话也可以颠倒过来说。因为尽管我尝试要知道的这个事实,我不是女人,这是一个事实,我并不知道,用女人知道男人的术语来说,这会牵涉到什么。

It is very possible that it may go, that it may go very far. But it can all the same not go so far as the woman creating man, even when it is a matter of her children, it is a matter of something that presents itself as a parasitism. In the uterus of the woman, the child is a parasite, and everything indicates that, up to and including the fact that things can go very badly between this parasite and this belly. So then what does knowing mean?


Knowing means being able to deal with the symptom, knowing how to sort it out, knowing how to manipulate it, to know (savoir), this is something that corresponds to what man does with his image, it is to imagine the way in which you can manage this symptom.


What is in question here, of course, is secondary narcissism, radical narcissism the narcissism that is called primary being ruled out on this particular occasion. Knowing how to deal with your symptom, that is the end of analysis. We have to recognise that this is pretty limited. It does not really go very far. How it is practised, this is of course what I am striving to convey in this crowd, with what result I do not know.


I embarked on this navigation like that, because at bottom I was provoked into doing so. It is what resulted from what was published in some special series or other of Ornicar on the split of 1953. I would surely have been much more discreet if the split of ‘53 had not happened.