Identification 80

Identification 80

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

7.3.62 XII 147

It is very easy to show that you can draw seven hexagons on the
torus and not one more, each one having with all the others a
common frontier. This, I apologise for it, to give a little
consistency to my object. This torus is not a bubble, it is not
a puff of air; you see how one can speak about it, even though
entirely, as one says in classical philosophy, as a construction
of the spirit it has all the resistance of something real. Seven
domains? For most of you: it is not possible. As long as I have
not shown it to you you have a right to oppose this “not
(24) possible” to me; why not six, why not eight?


Now let us continue. This ring here is not the only thing that
interests us as irreducible; there are others that you can draw
on the surface of the torus of which the smallest is what we can
call the most internal of the circles, which we will call empty


They make a circuit around this hole. One can make a lot of
things of them. What is certain, is that it is apparently
essential; now that it is there you can deflate your torus like a
bladder and put it in your pocket, because it is not part of the
nature of this torus to be always completely round, completely
even; what is important is this holed structure. You can
reinflate it every time you need it, but it can like the little
giraffe in little Hans who made a knot of his neck….


There is something that I want to show you right away. If it is
true that the synthetic enunciating in so far as it is maintained
in one of these circuits, in the repetition of this one, does it
not seem to you that this is going to be easy to depict. I have
only to continue what I drew for you at first fully, then in
dots, this will give a bobbin:


Here then are the series of circuits that they carry out in the
unary repetition of what returns and what characterises the
primary subject in his signifying, automatism of repetition
relationship. Why not push the bobbining to the end, until this
be studied as an analyst which exists in the writings of Mr


What happens at the end of this circuit? It closes itself off;
we find here moreover the possibility of reconciling what is
supposed, implicated and the final return to meaning of
Natiirwissenschaft with what I underline concerning the
necessarily unary function of the circuit.


This does not appear to you here in the way I am representing it
for you. But already there at the beginning and in so far as
the subject goes through the sequence of circuits he has
necessarily made a mistake of one in his count and we see
reappearing here the unconscious minus one in its constitutive


This for the simple reason that the circuit that he
cannot count is the one that he made in making a circuit of the
torus and I am going to illustrate it for you in an important
fashion, because it is of a nature to introduce you to the
function that we are going to give to two types of irreducible
act, those which are full circles and those which are empty
circles, regarding which you will guess that the second must have
some relationships with the function of desire.


Since, as compared to these circles which succeed one another, the
succession of full circles, you ought to notice that the empty
circles, which are in a way caught in the rings of these buckles
and which unify all the circles of demand among themselves, there
must be something which is related to the little object of
metonymy in so far as it is this object. I did not say that it
is desire that is symbolised by these circles, but the object as
such which is opposed to 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: