Identification 63

Identification 63

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

28.2.62 XI 125

The definition of the life instinct in Freud – it is not vain to
come back to it, to reaccentuate it – is no less strange because
of the fact that it is appropriate always to re-underline that it
(5) is reduced to Eros, to the libido. Notice carefully what
that signifies.


I will accentuate it through a comparison with
the earlier Kantian position; but already you see here the point
of contact to which we are reduced as regards the relationship to
the body. It is a matter of a choice, and of one so obvious that
in the theory this is materialised in these figures which it must
not be in any way forgotten are new and also what difficulties,
what aporias, indeed what impasses they oppose to our efforts to
justify them, even to situate them, to define them exactly.


I think that the function of the phallus, since it is that around
which there comes to be articulated this Eros, this libido,
sufficiently designates what I intend to highlight here. On the
whole all the figures, to take up again the term that I have just
employed, that we have to handle concerning this Eros, what have
they to do with, what have they in common for example in order to
make you sense the distance from the preoccupations of an
embryologist about whom one cannot all the same say that he has
nothing to do with it, with the life instinct, when he questions
himself about what an organiser is in growth, in the mechanism of
cellular division, the segmentation of skin layers, morphological


One is astonished to find it written somewhere
or other by Freud that analysis might lead to some biological
discovery or other. This is to be found on occasions, as far as
I remember, in the Abriss. What got into him at that time? I
ask myself what biological discovery has been made in the light
of analysis? But moreover, since it is a question of
highlighting here the limitation, the elective point of our
contact with the body, in so far, of course, as it is the
(6) support, the presence of this life, is it not striking that,
in order to reintegrate into our calculations the function of the
preservation of this body, it was necessary for us to pass
through the ambiguity of the notion of narcissism which has been
sufficiently designated.

I am thinking, in order not to have to
articulate it otherwise, about the very structure itself of the
narcissistic concept, and the equivalence that is placed on it
there with the liaison to the object, sufficiently designated, I
am saying, by the accent put ever since “An introduction to
narcissism” on the function of pain, and the first article in so
far – reread this excellently translated article – as pain is not
a signal of damage but an autoerotic phenomenon as I recalled not
too long ago in a casual conversation, and in connection with a
personal experience, to someone who is listening to me, the
experience of one pain effaces that of another, I mean that in
the present it is difficult to suffer two pains at the same time:
one takes over, makes one forget the other as if the libidinal
cathexis, even onto one’s own body, showed itself in this case to
be subject to the same law which I would call that of partiality
which motivates the relation to the world of the objects of desire.



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: