无意识的形成 28

无意识的形成 28
20.11.57 39
But naming them is not what is important. The core of what he
puts forward, the key to his analysis is this recognition of
common structural laws. This, as he says, is how you recognize
that a process has been drawn into the unconscious. It is what
is structured according to the laws, structured according to
their types. This is what is in question when the unconscious is
in question.


What happens then? What happens at the level of what I am
teaching you, is that we are now able, that is after Freud, to
recognize this event that is all the more demonstrative because
it is really extremely surprising.


That these laws, this
structure of the unconscious, that by which a phenomenon can be
recognized as belonging to the formations of the unconscious is
strictly identifiable with, overlaps, and I would even say
further, overlaps in an exhaustive fashion what linguistic
analysis allows us to detect as being the essential modes of the
(6) formation of meaning, in so far as this meaning is engendered
by combinations of signifiers.


The term signifier takes on its full meaning from a certain
moment in the evolution of linguistics, that at which there is
isolated the notion of the signifying element, a notion very
closely linked in the actual history to the separating out of the
notion of the phoneme.


Since it is uniquely localized by its
associations with this notion, the notion of signifier, in so far
as it allows us to take language at the level of a certain
elementary register, can be doubly defined, on the one hand as a
diachronic chain, and, as a possibility within this chain, of a
permanent possibility of substitution in the synchronic sense.


This grasp at an elementary level of the functions of the
signifier is a recognition at the level of this function of an
original power which is precisely that in which we can localize a
certain generation of something called meaning, and something
that in itself is very rich in psychological implications, and
that receives a kind of complement, without even needing to push
any further its own way, its research, to plough any further its
own furrow, in what Freud himself had already prepared for us at
this point of conjunction between the field of linguistics and
the proper field of psychoanalysis.


It is to show us that these
psychological effects, that these effects of the generation of
(7) meaning are nothing other than this, and overlap exactly what
Freud show us as being the formations of the unconscious.


In other words, we are able to grasp something that remained
elided up to then in what can be called the place of man, and it
is precisely this: the relationship that there is between the
fact that for him there exist objects of a heterogeneity, of a
diversity, of a variability that is truly surprising compared to
the biological objects that we could expect as corresponding to
his existence as a living organism, namely something particular
that presents a certain style, a certain superabundant and
luxuriant diversity, and at the same time something impossible to
grasp as such as a biological object, something that comes from
the world of human objects, something that is found in this
instance to be closely and indissolubly related to the
submission, to the subduction, of the human being by the
phenomenon of language.



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: