Archive for the ‘拉康:认同’ Category

From an other to the Other 45

August 26, 2015

From an other to the Other 45

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

8.1.69 VI 13
It is the point that, as imaginary support, corresponds to the
desire of the Other, what I have always written under the form of $£o,
namely, the phantasy, that there lies hidden this function of the “I”.


The “I” in so far as, contrary to the point of convergence called desire
of the Other, it is in a diverging fashion that this “I” hidden under, the
$$ o, is directed under the form that precisely I called at the beginning
that of a true questioning, of a radical questioning, towards the two
points where there lie the elements of the answer. Namely, in the line
on top, big S, which means a signifier, a signifier of the fact that O is
barred, and which is precisely what I took, what I also gave you the
trouble to ha ve a support to conceive of what I am here stating.


Namely, that the field of the Other does not secure, does not assure at
any place, , to any degree, the consistency of the discourse that is
articulated here, in any case, even the most apparently certain.
And on the other hand, the lower line, a meaning in so far as it is
fundamentally alienated. And it is here that you must grasp the sense
of my starting this year with the definition of the surplus enjoying and
its relationship with everything that one can call, in the most radical
sense, the means of production, at the level of meaning, if already the
pot, as I have pointed out to you, is only an apparatus to mask the
consequences of discourse, I mean the major consequences, namely,
the exclusion of enjoyment.


You see that in this way there is put into this Entzweiung, the term is
Hegelian, into this radical division which is the very one at which
Freud’s discourse culminates at the end of his life, the division of the
“I” articulated as such. It is nothing less than that between these two
terms, namely, the field where the Other in a way, in some imagining,
for a long time that of the philosophers, could correspond to any truth
and where precisely this is cancelled out by the simple examination of
the functions of language. I mean that we know how to make
intervene in it the function of the cut that answers “no!”, no to the God
of the philosophers.


And that, on the other hand, on a different
register, the one in appearance where enjoyment is waiting. It is there
precisely that it is a slave, and in the same way people said that up to
now that one could reproach psychoanalysis for overlooking the
conditions in which man is subjected to the social, as it is put, without
seeing that one is contradicting oneself. The materialism described as
historical only has a sense precisely by grasping that it does not depend
on the social structure since it affirms itself that it is on the means of
production. Namely, only from that with which one makes things that
deceive surplus enjoying. Namely, that, far from being able to hope to
fill the field of enjoyment, are not even sufficient for what is lost in it,
because of the Other.


I was not able, my God, as usual, to go any quicker than my own
violins. Nevertheless, I can announce here where I intend to take
things up the next time. I will tell you that it is not in vain that from
(81) the mouth of the God of the Jews, what I held onto is “I am what I
is”. It is indeed here that it is time for something to be finally
dissipated, something already clearly said by someone called Pascal. If
you wish, perhaps this will help you to understand what I am going to
tell you the next time, to read a little book that has appeared in Desctee
de Brouwer under the title of Pascal’s wager by a M Georges Brunet,
who knows admirably well what he is saying.

我的天,通常,我并不能够进行得比起我的小提琴还要快。可是,我能够在此宣佈,我下次打算要探讨事情的地方。我将告诉你们,这并非白费力气,从犹太人的上帝的嘴巴里,我所坚持的东西是:“我的生命实存在于我作为他者的生命实存”确实就是在这里,某件东西最后应该被驱散的时刻。某件东西已经清楚地由巴斯卡说出。你们若愿意,这或许将会帮助你们理解我下次将要告诉你们的东西。用“巴斯卡的赌注”的标题,乔治 布伦尼写的。他清楚明白他正在说什么。

As you have seen earlier
this is not true for every professor! But he for his part knows. What
he says, moreover, does not go very far, but at least he knows what he
is saying. On the other hand, it is a disentangling that is indispensable
for you about what is involved in this little sheet of paper folded in
four, that, as I already said, I already spoke about this, was found in
Pascal’s pockets, the dead Pascal. I speak a lot about the dead God, it
is probably to deliver us from many other relationships with others that
I evoked earlier, my relationships with the dead Freud; that has a
completely different sense.

But if you would not mind reading this Pascal’s wager by Georges
Brunet, at least you will know what I am talking about, when I speak
about this text, which is scarcely a quarto, as you know. It is a writing
that overlaps, that becomes entangled, that criss-crosses, that is
annotated. It was a text for the pleasure, of course, of professors. This
pleasure is brief, because they were never able to get absolutely
anything from it.

但是,假如你们不介意,阅读乔治 布伦尼写的“巴斯卡的赌注”,至少你们将会知道我正在谈论什么。当我谈论这个文本,那几乎不到四开本。你们知道。它是重叠的书写,变成纠缠,互相交叉,被注释。当然,这是一个适合于教授们享乐的文本。这种享乐是简短的,因为他们从来不能够从它那里获得任何东西。

There is something that is, on the contrary, quite clear, and it is with
this that I will begin the next time. That strictly nothing else is at stake
except precisely the “I”. People spend their time asking whether God
exists as if it were even a question. God is, there is absolutely no kind
of doubt about that, that absolutely does not prove that he exists. The
question does not arise. But it is necessary to know if “I” exists.
I think I will be able to make you sense that it is around this
uncertainty, does “I” exist, that Pascal’s wager is played out.

相反地,有某件东西相当清楚。我下次就是要用这个文本开始。那确实没有别的东西岌岌可危,除了确实就是这个“我”。人们花费他们的时间询问上帝是否存在,好似那甚至是一个问题。上帝存在,关于那点,绝对无可置疑。那绝对没有证明,上帝存在。这个问题并没有产生。但是有必要知道,“我”是否存在。我认为我将能够让你们理解,就是环绕这个不确定,这个“我” 存在。巴斯卡的赌注被赌光了。


From an other to the Other 44

August 26, 2015

From an other to the Other 44

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Well then, I think that here indeed Von Neuman is going a little too
far. Namely., I believe that the term residue is wrong, and that what is
revealed here about this function that already I have evoked from
several angles under the title of the impossible has a different structure
than the one that we have to deal with in the fall of what I call the oobject.

呵呵,我认为,在此确实是范 纽曼将会稍微扯太远。换句话说,我相信,“残渣”这个术语是错误的。在此被揭露的东西,关于我已经从好几个角度召唤的东西的这个功能,在“不可能”的这个标题之下。关于这个功能在此被揭露的东西,具有不同的结构,不同于我必须处理的这个结构,在我所谓的“小客体”的东西的掉落里。

Much more, I believe that what is revealed here in terms of
lack, even though no less structural, reveals no doubt the presence of
the subject, but no other subject than the one that brought about the
cut, the one that separated out the so-called meta-language from a
certain mathematical field, namely, quite simply its discourse, the cut
that separates this language from another isolated language, from an
artificial language, from formal language.


That is why this operation,
the cut, is no less fruitful in so far as it reveals properties that are
indeed the very stuff of the mathematical discourse, in that whether it
is a question of whole numbers on the status of which you know
people have not finished and that people will scarcely finish cavilling
about for some time as to whether these numbers have such a place
ontologically or not is a question that is totally foreign to the
experience of discourse in so far as it operates with them and that can
perform this double operation, 1) construct itself and 2) formalise

We are far, no doubt, at first sight, from what interests us at the centre,
and I do not know, given the little time that remains to me, how I can
bring you back to it today. Nevertheless, allow me to recall rapidly, to
sketch out here that the point that we had got to at the end of our last
session was the following: the truth speaks “I”. What about this “I”?


If the “I” is here to be strictly distinguished from the subject that as
you see one can somewhere can be reduced to the function of the cut,
impossible to distinguish from the one called unary trait in so far as it
isolates a function of the One as simply unique, and simply a cut in


The “I” is not for all that in any way assured, because we
can say the following about it. That it is and that it is not according to
whether, as subject, it operates, and that operating as subject, it is
exiled from the enjoyment which for all that is no less “I”.

8.1.69 VI 12

And it is here that I must remind you that in this graph (fig 6),
constructed to respond very precisely to the constitutive questioning of
analysis, what lies between the two lines called stating and stated,
namely that, cut again by that of signifying material, by the elementary
differential chain of phonemes, it allowed us to guarantee these four
(79) crossing points whose status is given precisely in terms of writing.


Here the $0D, here the O, the field of the Other, here the small s of O,
namely meaning, and here finally the big S of 0 , the signifier of
something approached several times, but never completely elucidated
called the O barred.


You know that here, homologous to the imaginary
return line that integrates the narcissistic relation into the field of the
statement, homologous, I am saying, you have here, halfway
incarnated in this written form what is necessary at the pure
enunciating level which is the following, namely, what is articulated as
$OD, which means here as elsewhere, everywhere I write it, demand.


Demand, not an indifferent one, “I ask myself’. And let us write here
in this form, “what you want”, the desire of the Other, in this complete
ambiguity that still allows there to be written “I ask you.. .what I
want”, since my desire is the desire of the Other.


There is no distinction here, except one induced by the very function of stating in
so far as it bears in itself its sense as first of all obscure, as if all
stating, as I already said, the most simple, only evokes its sense as a
consequence of its own emergence. “It is raining” is a discourse-event
and it is only secondary to know what it means about rain. Anyone at
all is capable of evoking “It is raining” in a particular context. It can
have very different senses. Do I need in this connection to recall that
“Get out” does not sound the same everywhere as it does in Bajazet.


If there is something that is more important to map out from this graph
than this discourse that accompanies it, it is the structural vectors as
they are presented here at the level where the You, as dominating the I,
as the you-ing (tu-ant) as I said at the level of the desire of the Other,
the vectors that converge. It is around the desire of the Other that the
demand of the discourse, of the discourse as we organise it in analytic
experience, of the discourse precisely that, under its aspect that
fallaciously pretends to be neutral, leaves open the sharpest accent of
the demand at its point. It is in a converging fashion around the desire
of the Other that everything that is at the source, as the retroactive
arrow indicated, everything that is at the source converges towards the
desire of the Other.



From an other to the Other 42

August 25, 2015

From an other to the Other 42

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
8.1.69 VI 9
The progress of this logical practice has allowed to be assured, but
only thanks to the use of formalisation processes, namely, by putting
into two columns, as I might say, what is stated from the first discourse
of mathematics, and this other discourse subjected to this double
condition of getting rid of equivocation and of being reduced to a pure


It is starting from there and only starting from there, namely,
from something that distinguishes the first discourse, the one in which
mathematics has boldly made all this progress and without having, a
curious thing, to correct it epoch by epoch, in a way that ruins the
acquisitions generally accepted in preceding epochs, in opposition to
this discourse pinpointed on this, occasion, and very wrongly in my
view, by the term of meta-language —


the use of this formal language
(77) called, for its part, no less wrongly, language – because it is from
something that a practice isolates as a closed field in what is quite
simply language, the language in which mathematical discourse could
not properly speaking be stated.


It is starting from there, I am saying,
that Godel shows that in this apparently most certain system of the
mathematical domain, that of arithmetical discourse, the very supposed
7 . . . . consistency of discourse implies what limits it, namely,
incompleteness. Namely, that by starting even from the hypothesis of
consistency, there will appear somewhere a formula, and it is enough
for there to be one for there to be many others, to which it cannot, by
the very paths of the accepted proof qua law of the system, be
answered yes or no. The first phase, the first theorem


The second phase, the second theorem Here I must abbreviate. Not
simply can the system, I mean the arithmetical system, not therefore
assure its consistency except by making of it its very incompleteness,
but it cannot, I am saying in the very hypothesis grounded on its
consistency, demonstrate this consistency within itself.


I took a little trouble to get across here something that is not assuredly
properly speaking our field, I mean the psychoanalytic field, if it is
defined by some olfactory apprehension or other. But let us not forget
that at the moment of telling you that it is not properly speaking about
what the sentence implied that I am finishing with another subject, you
see clearly where I land, on this vital point. Namely, that it is
unthinkable to operate in the psychoanalytic field, without giving its
correct status to what is involved in the subject.


8.1.69 VI 10

What do we find in the experience of this mathematical logic? What,
if not precisely this residue where the presence of the subject is
designated? At least is this not what a mathematician himself,
certainly one of the greatest, Von Neuman, seems to imply in making
this rather imprudent reflection that the limitations, I mean the
logically tenable ones, it is not a matter of any antinomy, of any of
these classical mind games that allow it to be grasped that the term
obsolete, for example, is an obsolete term

这个数学的逻辑的经验,我们发现什么呢?它难道不就是这个残渣,在那里,主体的存在被指明?至少,这难道不是数学家自己似乎在暗示的东西?他确实是其中一位最伟大的数学家,范 纽曼。当他从事这个相当不谨慎的反思。这些限制2,我指的是逻辑上自圆其说的限制,那并不是任何对立的问题,任何这些古典心灵遊戏的问题,这些心灵遊戏让它能够被理解,譬如,过时的这个术语是一个过时的术语。

And that starting from there
we are going to be able to speculate on the predicates that are applied
to themselves and those that are not so applied, with all that this
involves as a paradox. That is not what is at stake. What is at stake is
something that constructs a limit that uncovers nothing, no doubt, that
mathematical discourse has itself not discovered since it is on this field
of discovery that it tests out a method that allows it to question it about
something that is all the same essential.

从那里开始,我们将能够推理,根据这个陈述, 被运用到它们自己的陈述,以及那些没有那么被运用的陈述与这个牵涉作为悖论的一切东西。那并不是岌岌可危的东西。岌岌可危的东西是某件建构限制的东西。无可置疑,这个限制并没有揭露任何东西,数学的辞说它自己还没有发现的东西,因为在这个发现的领域,它测试一个方法。这个方法让它质疑它,关于某件东西,仍然是基本的东西。

Namely, up to what point can
it account for itself up to what point can its coincidence with its own
domain be affected if these terms had a sense, while it is the very
domain in which the notion of content had properly speaking been
(78) emptied. To say with Von Neuman that after all this is all very
fine because it bears witness to the fact that mathematicians have still a
reason to be there, since it is with what presents itself there in its
necessity, its proper ananke, its necessities of detour, that they will
indeed have their role. It is because something is missing that the
desire of the mathematician is going to come into play.

换句话说,直到什么时刻,它才能够说明它自己,直到什么时刻,它跟它自己的领域的巧合才能够被影响,假如这些术语具有意义。虽然,这就是这个领域,内容的观念恰当而言已经被掏空。就范 纽曼而言,毕竟,这是非常精致的,因为它见证到这个事实,数学家依旧有理由在那里。因为使用呈现它自己在那里的东西,在它的必要性,它的恰当的ananke,它的迂回的必要性,它的专门术语“必阿南刻(必然性ananke)”,它们确实拥有它们的角色。因为某件东西是失落,数学家的欲望将会运作。


From an other to the Other 42

August 24, 2015

From an other to the Other 42

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
8.1.69 VI 7

It nevertheless remains that there is the mathematician. The use, the
search for the formalisation of this discourse consists, as I said just
now, in assuring oneself that even if the mathematician completely
evaporates, the discourse holds up of itself. This implies the
construction of a language that is very precisely the one called rather
appropriately then, as you see, mathematical logic. It would be better
to say practice of logic, logical practice in the mathematical domain,
and the condition for realising this test is presented in a double form
that may appear an antinomy.


On one point this language seems to
have no other concern than to reinforce what is involved in
mathematical discourse whose character I have just reminded you of,
namely, to refine its unequivocal character. The second condition, and
this is why it appears antinomical, is that this unequivocal concerns
what? Always something that one can call object, naturally not an
indifferent one.


And that is why, in the whole attempt to extend this
new logical practice beyond the field of mathematics – to illustrate
what that means, I am speaking about Quine’s book Word and object,
for example — when it is a matter of extending this practice to common
discourse, people feel themselves required to start from what is called
object-language, which is nothing other than to satisfy this condition of
a language without equivocation.


An excellent opportunity moreover
to highlight what I always put the emphasis on from the start of my
reference to language. It is of the nature of discourse, of fundamental
discourse, not simply to be equivocal, but to be essentially made up of
the radical slippage of meaning, essential for any discourse.


A first condition then, I said, to be unequivocal. This can only be
referred to a certain object aimed at, of course, in mathematics, not an
object like others. And that is why, once Quine transfers the handling
of this logic to the study of common discourse, he speaks about “ob”
(76) language, stopping prudently at the first syllable! But on the other
hand, the second condition is that this language must be pure writing.


That nothing of what concerns it ought to be constituted only by
interpretations. The whole structure – 1 mean that one can attribute to
the object — is what constructs this writing. Hence there is nothing in
this formalisation that is not posited as interpretation. To the
nevertheless fundamental equivocation of common discourse there is
opposed here the function of isomorphism, namely, what constitutes a
certain number of domains as falling under the. capture of one and
same written formula.


When one enters into the experience of what is thus constructed, if one
takes a little trouble that I did not believe was unworthy of me to take,
as the article evoked above seems to suppose, and if one approaches
Godel’s theorem, for example — and after all it is within the reach of
each of you, it is enough to buy a good book or go to some good
places. We have gone multi-disciplinary, after all it is perhaps a
requirement that did not emerge from nothing.


It is perhaps from
seeing the trouble one has from what is improperly called mental
limitation – a theorem like this, moreover there are two of them, will
tell you that as regards the domain of discourse that seems to be most
assured, namely, arithmetical discourse, two and two are four all the
same, there is nothing on which one is more securely based. Naturally
people did not remain at that! Since that time, many things have been
glimpsed, but which in appearance are only in the strict development
of this two and two are four, in other words, that starting from there,
there is a discourse that, to all appearances, can be called consistent.


This means that when you state a proposition in it, you can say yes or
no, this is acceptable, is a theorem, as they say, of the system. This one
is not and is its negation which is, on this occasion, if one thinks one
should take the trouble of making a theorem of everything that can be
posited there as negative. Well then, this implies that this result is
obtained by way of a series of procedures on which no doubt is
brought to bear and that are called proofs.



Identification 272

August 18, 2015

Identification 272
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 354

(16) And, it is on this that the affects, he tells us, the
emotions considered here in his writing as entangled, if I may
express myself in this way, with the signifier, and taken up as
such. It is in this connection that he tells us that all the
confirmed emotions, what I might call the conventional forms of
emotion are nothing other than ontogenetic inscriptions of what
he compares, of what he reveals as expressly equivalent to
hysterical attacks, which is to come back to the relationship to
the signifier.

他告诉我们,这些情感,在他的著作,在此 被考虑的这些情感,作为纠缠于这个关系,假如我可以用这样的方式表达我自己,跟这个能指。这些情感被从事,作为这样的情感。关于这一点,他告诉我们,所有的被证实的情感,我所谓的传统的情感的形式,实实在在就是本体起源的铭记,他所比较的东西,他揭露的东西,作为生动地相等于是癔症的侵袭。那将会回答跟能指的关系。

The emotions are in a way the leavings (caduques) of behaviour,
the fallen parts taken up as signifying. And what is most
tangible, everything that we can see about them, is found in
antique forms of fighting. Let those who have seen the film
Rashomon remember the strange interludes which suddenly suspend
the combatants who carry out each one separately three little
circuits around themselves, make a paradoxical genuflection to
some unknown part or other of space.


This forms part of the
fight, just as in the sexual parade Freud teaches us to recognise
this type of interruptive paradox of incomprehensible scansions.
If something about emotions is shown to us in the case of the
hysteric, it is precisely when she is on the track of desire, it
is this clearly mimicked characteristic which is described as
being out of place, which deceives you and from which you draw an
impression of falseness. What does it mean, if not that the
hysteric of course can do nothing other than seek the desire of
the Other where it is, where it leaves its trace in the other, in
Utopia, or indeed in atopia, distress, even fiction; in short it
is along the path of display as one might expect, that all the
symptomatic aspects are shown. And if these symptoms find this
path already opened out, it is in liaison with this relationship
that Freud designates to the desire of the Other.


I had something else to point out to you about frustration. Of
course, what I brought you this year about the relationship to
the body, what is only outlined in the way in which I gave you in
a mathematical corpus the beginnings of all sorts of paradoxes
concerning the idea that we can have of the body, finds its
applications undoubtedly well designed to modify profoundly the
idea that we may have of frustration as a sort of lack which
concerns a gratification referred to what is supposed to be a
so-called primitive totality as people would like to see it
(17) designated in the relationships of the mother and the child.


It is strange that analytic thinking has never encountered on
this path except as always in corners of Freud’s observations –
and here I am designating the word Schleier – this caul with
which the child is born and which hangs around analytical
literature without it being ever dreamt that we had here the
beginning of a very fruitful path: the stigmata.


27.6.62 XXVI 355

If there is something which allows some primary narcissism or
other to be conceived of as involving a totality – and here I can
only regret that someone who posed me the question has absented
himself – it is undoubtedly the reference of the subject, not so
much to the body of the host mother, but to these lost envelopes
where there is so well read this continuity between the inside
and the outside, which is the one to which my model of this year
introduced you, to which we will have to return.


Simply I want to indicate to you, because we will rediscover it
subsequently, that if there is something in which there ought to
be accentuated the relationship to the body, to incorporation, to
Einverleibung, it is on the side of the father who is entirely
left to one side that you should look.


I left him entirely to one side because I would have had to
introduce you – but when will I do it – to a whole tradition
which is called mystical and which undoubtedly, by its presence
in the Semitic tradition, dominates the whole personal adventure
of Freud.


But if there is something that one demands of the mother, does it
not appear to you to be striking that it should be the only thing
that she does not have, namely the phallus? The whole dialectic
of these last years, up to and including the Kleinian dialectic,
which nevertheless gets closest to it, remains falsified because
the accent is not put on this essential divergence.


The fact is moreover that it is impossible to correct it, impossible also to
understand anything about what constitutes the impasse of the
analytic relationship, and very especially in the transmission of
analytic truth as didactic analysis carries it out. The fact is
that it is impossible to introduce into it the relationship to
the father, that one is not the father of one’s analysand. I
have said enough and done enough to ensure that no-one would dare
any longer, at least in any entourage that is close to mine, risk
advancing that one can be his mother. This nevertheless is what
is involved.


(18) The function of analysis as it is inserted where Freud left
it to us with its open future, its gaping trace, is situated
where the pen fell from his hand in connection with the article
on the splitting of the ego at the ambiguous point which brings
the following; the object of castration is this term which is
ambiguous enough for it to happen that at the very moment that
the subject has busied himself with repressing it he establishes
it more firmly than ever in an Other.


So long as we have not recognised that this object of castration
is the very object through which we situate ourselves in the
field of science, I mean that it is the object of our science as
number or quantity may be the object of mathematics, the
dialectic of analysis, not only its dialectic but its practice,
its relationship even and even the structure of its community
will remain in suspense.


Next year, I will deal for you, pursuing strictly the point at
which I left you today, with anxiety



27.6.62 XXVI 356

Identification 271

August 18, 2015

Identification 271
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 12

I will pass over the steps which go by way of this “while perched
on his shoulders the word it and the word I began their carnage”,
to the confrontation that I was aiming at in evoking this passage
for you:


“His hands tried to touch an impalpable and unreal body. It
was such a horrible effort that this thing which drew away
from him and in drawing away tried to attract him, appeared
to him the same as the one that got unspeakably closer. He
fell to the ground. He had the feeling of being covered
with impurities, each part of his body underwent an agony,
his face was forced to touch evil, his lungs to breathe it.


He was there on the floor, twisting himself, then entering
into himself, then emerging. He crawled heavily scarcely
different from the serpent that he would have wished to
become in order to believe in the venom that he felt in his
mouth. It was in this state that he felt himself bitten or
struck, he could not know which, by what seemed to him to be
a word but which resembled rather a gigantic rat, with
piercing eyes, with pure teeth, an all-powerful
beast. Seeing it a few inches from his face he could not
escape from the desire to devour it, to draw it into the
most profound intimacy with himself; he threw himself on it
and digging his nails into its entrails, he tried to make it
his own.


(14) The end of the night came. The light which shone
through the shutters was extinguished. But the struggle
with the terrible beast, which had finally revealed itself
to be of an incomprehensible dignity and magnificence lasted
for an immeasurable time. This struggle was horrible
for the being lying on the floor grinding his teeth,
furrowing his face, tearing out his eyes in order to get the
animal to enter, and who would have looked like a demon if
he had not resembled a man. It was almost too beautiful
for this sort of black angel, covered with red hairs,
with sparkling eyes.


Sometimes one believed he had triumphed and he saw
descending into himself with an ungovernable nausea, the
word innocence defiling him; sometimes the other devoured
him in his turn, dragged him back through the hole through
which it had come, then rejected him like a hard and empty


On every occasion, Thomas was repulsed to the very
foundations of his being by the very words which had haunted
him and which he had pursued like his nightmare and like the
explanation of his nightmare. He discovered himself still
more empty and more heavy, he no longer stirred except with
an infinite fatigue. His body, after such a struggle became
entirely opaque and to those who regarded it, he gave the
restful impression of sleep even though he had been
ceaselessly awake.”


You can read the rest yourselves.


27.6.353 XXVI 13
And the path of what Maurice Blanchot uncovers for us does not
stop there. If I took the trouble here to indicate this passage
to you, it is because as the time comes for me to leave you this
year I want to tell you that I am often aware of doing nothing
here other than allowing you to advance with me to the point that
all around us many of the best people have already got to.
Other people have noted the parallel between some of the
researchs that are being carried on at present and the ones that
we are elaborating here together. I would have no trouble
reminding you that on other paths, the works and then the
reflections on the works by himself of Pierre Klossowski converge
with this path of research into phantasy as we have elaborated it
(15) this year.

莫瑞斯 布朗肖替我们挖掘出的东西的途径,并没有停顿那里。假如我们在此费这个力3气来跟你们指出这个段落,那是因为我今年离开你们的时刻来到。我想要告诉你们,我经常知道,在此我所做的事情实实在在就是让你们能够跟我一块到达这个时刻:在我们周遭,许多最好的人们已经到达的时刻。其他的人们已经注意到这个并列,处于一些目前正在被执行的研究,我们正在这里一块建构的研究。我并不费力气地提醒你们,对于其他的途经,这些著作,还有皮尔 克罗索斯基自己对于这些著作的反思。它们跟研究幻见的这个途经不谋而合,如同我们今年曾经建构它。

Small i of small o and small o, their difference, their
complementarity and the mask that one constitutes for the other,
this is where I have led you this year. Small i of small o, its
image, is therefore not its image, it does not represent it, this
object of castration. It is not in any way this representative
of the drive on which repression is brought to bear electively.
And for a double reason: the fact is that it is not, this image,
either the Vorstellung because it is itself an object, a real
image – consult what I wrote on this subject in my observations
on the report of Daniel Lagache, – nor an object which is not the
same as small o, which is not its representative either. i(o)
and o.

小客体(o)的小魅影理想自我(i), 与小客体(o),它们的差异,它们的互相辅助,其中一个替另外一个形成的这个面具。这就是我今年引导你们的东西。小客体(o)的小魅影理想自我(i),它的意象,因此并不是它的意象。它根本就不是这个冲动的这个代表,压抑被迫选择地跟这个冲动有关联。因为双重的理由:事实上,并不是这个意象,既不是这个理型,因为它的自身是一个客体,一个真实的意象。请你们参照一下我书写过针对这个主题的东西,在我观察丹尼尔 拉加奇的报告。它也不是一个跟小客体(o)不同的客体,它也不是它的代表,i(o)与(o)。

Desire, you must not forget, is situated where in the graph? It
aims at the phantasy $ barred cut of little o, in a mode
analogous to that of e where the ego refers itself to the
specular image. What does that mean, if not that there is some
relationship of this phantasy to the desirer himself. $4 o


But can we make of this desirer purely and simply the agent of
desire? Let us not forget that at the second stage of the graph
d, desire is a “who” who responds to a question, which is not
aimed at a “who”, but a “Che vuoi?”.


To the question: “Che vuoi?” the desirer is the response, the response which is not designated by the who of “who wants?”, but the response of the
object. What I want in the phantasy determines the object from
which the desirer that it contains must avow himself as desirer.


Look for him always, this desirer, at the core of any object of
desire, and do not put up necrophilic perversion as an objection
because precisely this is the example where it is proved that on
this side of (en-deca) the second death physical death still
leaves something to be desired and that the body allows itself be
grasped there as entirely caught up in the function of the
signifier, separated from itself and a witness to what the
necrophilic embraces: an ungraspable truth.


This relationship of the object to the signifier, before leaving
you, let us come back to the point that these reflections are
based on, namely to what Freud himself marked about the
identification of desire (in parentheses in the case of the
hysteric) to the desire of the Other. The hysteric shows us
clearly in effect the distance between this object and the
signifier, this distance which I defined by the lack of the
signifier but implying its relation to the signifier. In effect,
it is to this that the hysteric identifies herself when, Freud
tells us, it is the desire of the Other with regard to which she
orientates herself and which started her hunting.



Identification 270

August 17, 2015

Identification 270
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 10

We know from our experience that nothing has any veritable weight
in the world except something which makes an allusion to this
object of which the Other, big 0 takes the place to give it a
(11) meaning.


Every metaphor, including that of the symptom tries to make this
object emerge in its signification, but all the pullulation of
meanings that it may engender never manages to staunch what is
involved in this hole in terms of a central loss.


Here is what regulates the relationships of the subject with the
Other, 0, what regulates secretly but in a fashion which is
surely not less efficacious than this relationship of small o to
the imaginary reflection which covers and surmounts it. In other
words that on the road, the only one that is open to us to
rediscover the incidence of this little o, we encounter first of
all the mark of the occultation of the Other, under the same


Such in effect is the way: o can be approached along this way
which is that the Other, with a big 0, desires in the failing
subject, in the phantasy, the $ barred. This is why I taught you
that the fear of desire is experienced as equivalent to anxiety,
that anxiety is the fear of what the Other in himself desires of
the subject, this “in himself” founded precisely on the ignorance
of what is desired at the level of the Other. It is from the
side of the Other that the little o comes to light, not so much
as lack but as to be.


This is why we come here to pose the question of its relationship
to the thing, not the sacred one, but what I described to you as
das Ding. You know that in leading you to this limit I did
nothing other than indicate to you that here the perspective is
inverted, this small i of small o which envelopes this access to
the object of castration is here the very image which creates an
obstacle in the mirror, or rather, in the way it happens in
obscure mirrors – one must always think of this obscurity every
time that in the ancient authors you see intervening a reference
to the mirror – something can appear beyond the image that the
clear mirror gives. It is to the image of the clear mirror that
there is hooked on this barrier which I called at the time that
of beauty. Moreover the revelation of little o beyond this
image, even if it appears under the most horrible form, will
always preserve its reflection.


And it is here that I would like to share with you the happiness
(12) that I had in encountering these thoughts in the writings of
someone whom I consider to be quite simply the poet of our
literature, who has certainly gone further than anyone in the
present or the past along the path of the realisation of the
phantasy. I am talking about Maurice Blanchot whose death
sentence was for me for a long time the surest confirmation of
what I was saying for a whole year in the seminar on Ethics about
the second death.

就在这里,为想要跟你们分享这个快乐,我拥有的快乐,当我遭遇这些思想,在某个人的著作里。我认为这个人就是我们的文学的诗人。他确实曾经比起目前或过去的其他人们更加深入,沿著幻见的实现的途径。为正在谈论莫瑞斯 布朗肖。他的死刑,长久以来对于我,就是最确实的证实,我一整年来正在说的东西,在精神分析伦理学的研讨班,关于二次死亡。

27.6.62 XXVI 11
I had not read the second version of his first work Thomas
1’Obscur. I think that none of you, after what I am going to
read you of it, will fail to test yourselves against such a small
volume. Something is encountered there which incarnates the
image of this object o, in connection with which I spoke about
horror; it is the term that Freud uses when he is dealing with
the Ratman. Here it is something about rats that is involved.


Georges Bataille wrote a long essay which turns around the wellknown
central phantasy of Marcel Proust, which also concerns a
rat: Histoire de rat. But do I need to tell you that if Apollo
riddles the Greek army with the arrows of the plague, it is
because, as M Gregoire very well noted, if Aesclepius, as I
taught you a long time ago is a mole – not so long ago I
discovered the plan of a molehill in a tolos (?), a further one
that I visited recently – if then Aesclepius is a mole, Apollo is
a rat.

乔治 巴代尔写过一篇长的论文,环绕马塞尔 普洛斯托的这个著名的幻见,关于一只老鼠的幻见:老鼠的历史。但是,我需要告诉你们吗?假如阿波罗使用瘟疫的箭矢射倒希腊的军队,那是因为,如同格瑞果尔清楚注意到,假如阿科利皮斯是一只鼹鼠,如同我长久以前教导你们的,不久以前,我发现一只鼹鼠沙丘的计划—我最近拜访的更进一步的计划。假如阿科利皮斯是一只鼹鼠,那么阿波罗就是老鼠。

Here it is. I am anticipating, or more exactly I am taking
Thomas 1’Obscur a little earlier on – it is not by chance that he
is called that -:


“And in his room, those who entered, seeing his book always
open at the sames pages, thought he was pretending to read.
He read with an unsurpassable minuteness and attention. He
was aware of every sign of the situation that the male finds
himself in when the praying mantis is going to devour him.
They were looking at one another. The words, issuing from a
book took on there a mortal power, exercised on the look
which touched them a soft and peaceful attraction. Each one
of them, like a half-closed eye, allowed there to enter a
too lively gaze that in other circumstances it would not
have tolerated.


Thomas slipped along then towards these corridors which
he approached without defence until the moment he was
(13) glimpsed by the intimacy of the word. It was not yet
terrifying, it was on the contrary an almost agreeable
moment that he would have liked to prolong.


The reader
joyously considered this little spark of life which he did
not doubt he had awoken. He saw himself with pleasure in
this eye which saw him; his pleasure itself became very
great, it became so great, so pitiless that he underwent it
with a sort of terror and that having raised himself up,
an intolerable moment, without receiving from his
interlocutor a sign of complicity, he perceived the whole
strangeness that there was in being observed by a word as
if by a living being.


And not alone by a word, but by all
those which accompanied it and which in their turn contained
in themselves other words, like a succession of angels
opening out to infinity even to the very eye of the



Identification 268

August 16, 2015

Identification 268
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 8

This, let us say it, demonic rather than divine Goethean
intuition which made him moreover read in the skull found on the
Lido the completely imaginary shape of Werther or forge the
theory of colours, in short leaves for us the traces of an
activity of which the least one can say is that it is cosmogenic,
engendering the oldest illusions of the micro-macroscopic analogy
and nevertheless still captivating for a spirit so close to us.
What does that depend on?


To what do we attribute the
exceptional fascination that the personal drama of Goethe
exercises on us if not to the flowering as central to that drama,
in his case, of desire. “Warum Goethe liebst Frederique?” wrote,
as you know, in an article, one of the survivors of the first
generation, Theodor Reik.

我们将这个例外的著迷归属于什么?歌德的个人的戏剧对于我们运作的著迷,在这个情况,难道不就是针对欲望的怒放,作为戏剧的中心?”Warum Goethe liebst Frederique?”你们知道,希奥德 雷克,是第一代的其中一位余生者,他这样写道。

The specificity and the fascinating character of Goethe’s
personality is that in it we read in all its presence the
identification of the object of desire to what must be renounced
(9) in order that the world as world should be delivered to us.
I very sufficiently recalled the structure of this case by
showing in it the analogy with the one developed by Freud in the
story of the Ratman, in “The individual myth of the neurotic”.


Or rather it was published somewhere without my consent, because
I neither revised nor corrected this text, which makes it almost
unreadable; nevertheless it has been hanging around here and
there and one can find the broad lines of it


In this complementary relationship of o, the object of a
constitutive castration where our object as such is situated,
with this remainder and where we cannot read everything, and
especially our figure i(o), it is this that I tried to illustrate
this year for you at the high point of my discourse.


In the specular illusion, in the fundamental miscognition with
which we always have to deal, does o takes on the function of
specular image under the form of i of o even though, as I might
say it has no similarity with it. It could not in any way read
its image in it for the good reason that, if this $ barred is
something, it is not the complement of small i factor of small o,
it could just as well be the cause of it, we will say – and I am
employing this term intentionally, because for some time
precisely, ever since the categories of logic have been shaken a
little, cause – good or bad – has not in any case had a good
press and people prefer to avoid speaking about it.


27.6.62 XXVI 9

And in effect there is scarcely anybody but we who can find our
way in this function whose ancient shade in short one cannot
approach after the mental progress that has taken place, except
by seeing in it some sort of identical of everything that is
manifested as effects, but when they are still veiled.


And of course this has nothing satisfying about it, except perhaps if
precisely it is not by being at the place of something, by
cutting all its effects, that the cause sustains its drama. If
there is as well moreover a cause which is worth our while
becoming attached to, at least by our attention, it is not always
and in advance a lost cause.


Therefore we can articulate that if there is something on which
we ought to put the accent rather than avoiding it, it is that
(10) the function of the partial object could not in any way be
reduced for us, if what we call partial object is what designates
the point of repression because of its loss.


And it is starting from there that there takes root the illusion
of the cosmicity of the world. This acosmic point of desire in
so far as it is designated by the object of castration, is what
we ought to preserve as the pivotal point, the centre of every
elaboration of what we have to accumulate as facts concerning the
constitution of the objectal world.


But this object o that we
see arising at the point of the failure of the Other, at the
point of the loss of the signifier because this loss is the loss
of this object itself, of the never rediscovered member of the
dismembered Horus, how can we not give this object what I will
call by way of parody its reflexive property, as I might say,
because it is from it that it starts, that it is in as much as
the subject is first of all and uniquely essentially cutting of
this object that something can be born which is this interval
between the flesh and the hide between Wahrnehmung and
Bewusstsein, between perception and consciousness which is


It is here that it is worth stating its place
in an ontology founded on our experience. You will see that it
rejoins here a formula commented on at length by Heidegger, in
its pre-Socratic origin.


The relationship of this object to the image of the world which
orders it, constitutes what Plato called properly speaking the
dyad provided we notice that in this dyad the subject $ barred
and the o are at the same side: to auto einai kai noiig. This
formula which for a long time was used to confuse what is not
sustainable, being and knowledge, means nothing other than that.

这个客体跟世界的意象的关系,组成柏拉图所谓的,恰当而言的二元关系,只要我们注意到,在这个二元关系,被划杠的主体$与这个客体o在相同的一边:to auto einai kai noiig。这个公式长久以来被使用来混淆无法被维持的东西,生命实存与知识,它实实在在就是那个意思。

Compared to the correlative little o, to what remains when the
constitutive object of the phantasy has separated itself, being
and thinking are on the same side, on the side of o. Small o is
being in so far as it is essentially missing in the text of
the world. And that is why around little o there can slide
everything that is called the return of the repressed, namely
that here there is betrayed the true truth which interests us and
which is always the object of desire, in so far as the whole of
humanity, the whole of humanism is constructed to make us miss



Identification 266

August 13, 2015

Identification 266
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

27.6.62 XXVI 4

But we are dealing with a beginning, with a more simple kernel,
which I would like to depict for you, as I told you, by an
example. And I will not go looking for it very far, but in a
proverb which presents in the French tongue a particularity which
nevertheless does not spring to the eye, at least for French
speakers, the proverb is the following: “All that glitters is not
gold, tout ce qui brille n’est pas or”.


In colloquial German for example, you must not believe that you
can be satisfied with crudely transcribing it: “alles was glanzt
ist keine Gold”. This would not be a good translation. I see
Melle Uberfreit nodding approval as she listens to me; she
approves of what I am saying: “nicht alles was glanzt ist Gold”.

譬如,在口语的德语,你们一定不要相信,你们会满意于粗糙地铭记它:”alles was glanzt ist keine Gold”。这将不会是一个好的翻译。我看见吴伯瑞特女士点头同意,当她倾听我时。她同意我正在说的东西:”nicht alles was glanzt ist Gold”.

(5) This may give greater satisfaction as regards its apparent
meaning, putting the accent on the alles, thanks to an
anticipation of the nicht which is not at all usual, which forces
the genius of the tongue and which, if you reflect on it, misses
the sense, because this is not the distinction that is involved.
I could use the Eulerian circles, the same ones that we used the
other day in connection with the relationship of the subject to
some case or other: all men are liars.


Is it simply this that that signifies?
The fact is, to recover myself here, a
part of what glitters is in the circle
of gold and another part is not there.
Is that the meaning?


You must not believe that I am the first
among the logicians to have paused at
this structure and in truth, more than
one author who has occupied himself with
negation has paused in effect at this
problem, not at all so much from the
point of view of formal logic, which, as
you see, scarcely pauses at it except in
order to miscognise it from the point of
view of grammatical form, insisting on
the fact that the circuits are ordered in such a fashion that
there is precisely put in question the “goldness”, if I may
express myself in this way, the golden quality of what glitters.


The authenticity of the gold goes then in the direction of a
radical putting into question; gold here is symbolic of what
makes glitter, and if I can put it this way in order to make
myself understood, I stress, what gives an object the fascinating
colour of desire.


What is important in a formula like this, if I can express myself
in this way – forgive me the play on words – is the point d’ORage
[the eye of the storm, the golden point] around which there turns
the question of what makes something glitter, and in a word, the
question of how much truth there is in this glittering.


27.6.62 XXVI 5
And, starting from there, of course no gold is going to be true
enough to guarantee this point around which there subsists the
function of desire.


Such is the radical characteristic of this sort of object that I
call small o: it is the object put into question, in so far as
one can say that it is what interests us, us analysts, as what
(6) interests someone listening to any teaching. It is not for
nothing that I saw nostalgia arising on the lips of the person
who wanted to say: “Why does he not say”, as someone put it, “the
truth about the truth?”.


It is truly a great tribute to a
discourse which takes place every week in this senseless position
of being here behind a table in front of you articulating this
sort of account which one is quite content normally to see always
avoiding such a question.


If it were not a matter of the analytic object, namely the object
of desire, raising such a question would never even be dreamt of,
except on the lips of a Huron who might imagine that when one
comes to the University it is in order to know “the truth about
the truth”. Now this is what is involved in analysis. One
could say that it is the mirage of this that we are, often in
spite of ourselves, embarrassed to polish up in the spirit of
those to whom we address ourselves. We find ourselves, I am
really saying, embarrassed, like the poison of the proverbial
apple; and nevertheless it is really what is there, this is what
we are dealing with, it is on it, in so far as it is at the heart
of the structure, it is on it that there is brought to bear what
we call castration.


It is precisely in so far as there is a hard, suggestive
structure which turns around a kind of cut – the one which I
represented for you in this way – that there is at the heart of
phantastical identification this organizing object, this inducing
object. And it could not be otherwise as regards the whole
world of anxiety with which we have to deal, which is the object
defined as object of castration.


Here I want to remind you about the surface from which there is
borrowed this part which I described for you the last time as
enucleated, which gives the very image of the circle in terms of
which this object can be defined. I want to image for you what
the property of this circle with the double circuit is. Magnify
progressively the two lobes of this cut so that they both pass,
as I might say, behind the anterior surface. There is nothing
new about that, it is the way I already demonstrated to you of
displacing this cut. One has only in effect to displace it and
one makes it appear very easily that the complementary part of
the surface, with respect to what is isolated around what one can
call the two central leaves, or the two petals, to make them
connect up with one another – the inaugural metaphor of the cover
of Claude Lévi-Strauss’ book, with this very image – what remains
is an apparent lotus-surface.

在此,我想要提醒你们,关于这个表面。我上次跟你们描述的这个部分,就是从这个表面借用过来,作为是被表达的东西。它给予圆圈的这个意象。用这个圆圈的术语,这个客体被定义。我想要跟你们描绘,具有双重循环的这个圆圈的特性是什么。请你们将这个切割的两个肺页逐渐放大,这样,它们两个都会通过前面的表面的背后,我不妨说。关于这一点并不是什么新东西。那就是我已经跟你们证明的方式,关于取代这个切割。我们实际上只必须要取代它,然后我们很容易让它出现,这样,这个表面的辅助的部分,关于被孤立出来的东西,环绕我们所谓的两个中央的叶片,或两个花瓣,为了让它们互相联接。这是克劳德 李维斯陀的书的封面的开始的隐喻。剩余下来的东西,就是外表的莲花的表面。


Identification 264

August 11, 2015

Identification 264
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
Seminar 26: Wednesday 27 June 1962
Today in the context of the theoretical teaching that we have
succeeded this year in going through together, I am indicating to
you that I have to choose my axis, as I might say, and I will put
the accent on the support-formula of the third type of
identification which I noted for you a long time ago, since the
time of the graph, under the form of $ which you now know how to
read as cut of big i t o [or: cut of big 0]. Not what is
implicit, nodal in at namely the$, the point thanks to which the
eversion from one into the other can take place, thanks to which
the two terms present themselves as identical, like the back and
the front, not just any back whatsoever and not just any front.


Otherwise I would not have needed to show you at the appropriate
place what it is when it represents the double cut on this
particular surface whose topology I tried to show you in the


This point designated here is the point (jj thanks to which the
circle indicated by this little cut can be for us the mental
schema of an original identification; this point – I believe I
have sufficiently indicated its structural function in my last
discourses – can, up to a certain point harbour for you too many
satisfying properties; here is this phallus with this magical
function which is indeed the one that our discourse for a long
time now implies in it. It would be a little too easy to find
(2) our final resting point here.


This is why today I want to put the accent on this point, namely
on the function of o, the small o in so far as it is at the same
time properly speaking what can allow there to be conceived the
function of the object in analytic theory, namely this object
which in psychical dynamics is what structures for us the whole
progressive-regressive process, what we have to deal with in our
relationships of the subject to his psychical reality, but is
also our object, the object of analytic science.


27.6.62 XXVI 2
And what I want to put in the foreground, in what I am going to
say to you about it today, is that if we want to qualify this
object in a properly logical perspective, I stress: logical
(logicisante), we have nothing better to say about it except the
fact that it is the object of castration. I mean by this, I
specify, compared to the other functions of the object defined up
to now. Because if one can say that the object in the world, in
so far as it is discerned there, is the object of a privation,
one can also say that the object is the object of frustration.
And I am going to try to show you precisely how this object of
ours is distinguished from it.


It is quite clear that if this object is an object of logic it
cannot have been up to now completely absent, undisclosed in all
the attempts made to articulate as such what is called logic.
Logic has not always existed in the same form. The one which
perfectly satisfied, fulfilled us up to Kant, who was still
indulgent towards it, this formal logic, born one day from the
pen of Aristotle exercised this captivation, this fascination
until people devoted themselves, in the last century, to what
could be revised in it in detail. It was noticed for example
that many things were missing in it as regards quantification.
It is certainly not what was added to it which is interesting,
but the way it held us. And many of the things that people
thought should be added to it only go in a singularly sterile


In fact, it is in the reflection that analysis imposes on us as
regards these powers of Aristotelian logic which were so
(3) insistent for such a long time, that there can be presented
for us the interest of logic. The gaze of someone who strips
formal Aristotelian logic of all its so fascinating details must
– I repeat to you – abstract itself from the decisive things it
has contributed in terms of a cut in the mental world in order
even to understand truly what preceded it, for example the
possibility of the whole Platonic dialectic which is always read
as if formal logic were already there, which completely distorts
our reading of it. But let us leave this.


The Aristotelian object – because this indeed is what it must be
called – has precisely, as I might say, the property of being
able to have properties which belong to it alone: its attributes.
And it is these that define classes.


Now this is a construction which he only owes to a confusion of
what I would call – for want of anything better – the categories
of being and having. This would deserve long developments and,
in order to get you to take this step I am obliged to have
recourse to an example which will serve as a support.