Speaking through One’s Symptom, Speaking through One’s Body : 7th July 2012 (Lausanne) & 23rd November 2013 (Buenos Aires) : Éric Laurent

by Julia Evans on July 7, 2012

This text is the presentation for the Sixth Encuentro Americano de Psicoanálisis de la Orientacíon Lacaniana held in Buenos Aires on 22-23 November 2013.

It was published in French in Quarto, Issue 105, September 2013.

Apart from the opening and closing sections, this text is taken from a transcript of a lecture delivered on 7 July 2012 as part of the ‘Lacan lecteur de Freud’ series organised by Marlène Belilos and Renato Seidl of ASREEP-NLS.

The video in French is available as below:

Video avec Eric Laurent et François Ansermet, séance du 07 juillet 2012: “Du Sinthome” (seconde partie)

Deuxième partie : Eric Laurent commente le Séminaire XXIII “Le sinthome” de Jacques Lacan, Séminaire “Lacan lecteur de Freud” à Lausanne, Organisé par Marlène Belilos et Renato Seidl

Available https://lecturesfreudiennes.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/video-avec-eric-laurent-et-francois-ansermet-seance-du-07-juillet-2012-du-sinthome-seconde-partie/

Translated by Adrian Price

Published in Hurly Burly, Issue 11, May 2014

Available here

Availability of references:

-P139 :

Footnote 2: Lacan J, Radiophonie, Autres Écrits, Seuil, Paris,2001, p.414. : … one of the consequences of the object a’s “rise to the zenith”.

See Radiophonie: recorded on 9th April 1970 : transmitted 5th, 10th, 19th, and 26th June 1970 : Jacques Lacan or here

P8 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : It is the hic that is only made a nunc in being a psychoanalyst, but also a Lacanian one. Soon everyone will be one, my audience makes its prodrome, therefore psychoanalysts also. The rising to the social zenith of the object called by me my petit a would suffice there, by the effect of anxiety provoked by the hollowing out from which our discourse produces it, from failing at its production.

See also Autres Écrits: 2001 : Jacques Lacan or here

– p140 :

Footnote 4: Lacan, J., “La méprise du sujet supposé savoir”, Autres écrits, op.cit., p.334.  : We get a better idea of it from what Lacan calls “the astounding picture of amnesia that is termed identity amnesia.”

See The Mistaking of the Subject Supposed to Know (Naples): 14th December 1967: Jacques Lacan or here

P4 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : This representation is what one calls memory [souvenir]. Memory, the slipping beneath, is from two sources that one has confused up to now:

1) the insertion of the living being [le vivant] into the reality that is what it imagines and that can be measured in the manner in which the living being [il] reacts there;

2) the link of the subject to a discourse where it can be suppressed, which is to say, not know that this discourse implies it.

The formidable tableau of the amnesia said to be of identity should here be instructive.

It must be implied in it that the usage of the proper noun, inasmuch as it is social, does not give over that its origin is there. Thenceforth one can call amnesia the order of eclipse suspended at its loss: the enigma is all the better distinguished by the subject’s not losing any benefit of learning in it.

Footnote 5: Lacan J., 16 November 1976 lesson of Le séminaire XXIV, L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre, in Ornicar?, Issue 12/13, December 1977, p.5 : He says this explicitly in the first lesson of Seminar XXIV: “I’m trying to introduce something that goes further than the unconscious.”

See  Seminar XXIV : ‘L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre’ : 1976-1977 : begins 16th November 1976 : Jacques Lacan  or here

P2 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : 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.

Footnote 6 : Ibid. : He immediately complements this spatial metaphor with a question about time: “For the analysis of a dream, do we really have to say that one should restrict oneself of what happened the day before?”

P1-2 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Moreover, should we be saying that to analyse a dream we should stick to what happened the previous day? 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 [p2] what happened, not the previous day, but this time during the day, this is something that really should be questioned.

Footnote 7 : Ibid.
: To explain the dream, one surely has to draw on things that reach right back to “the very fabric of the unconscious.”

See above quote of p1 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation.

Footnote 8 : Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XXIII, Le sinthome, Seuil, Paris, 2005 :  After the Seminar on Joyce, …

See  Seminar XXIII: The Sinthome or Joyce and the Sinthome: 1975-1976: beginning on November 18th 1975 : Jacques Lacan or here

This path can be followed over a yearlong sequence of punctuations between 9 March 1976 and ….

See Seminar XXIII, as above, for the following sessions :

VIII Wednesday 9th March 1976:

IX Wednesday 16th March 1976

X  Wednesday 13th April 1976

XI Wednesday 11th May 1976

Preface to the English-language edition of Seminar XI : 17th May 1976 : Jacques Lacan  or here

Seminar XXIV : ‘L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre’ : 1976-1977 : begins 16th November 1976 : Jacques Lacan or here

From Wednesday 16th November 1976

Wednesday 14th December 1976

Wednesday 21st December 1976

Wednesday 11th January 1977

Wednesday 18th January 1977

Wednesday 8th February 1977

Wednesday 15th February 1977

Footnote 9 Lacan, J., “On Hysteria”, translated by Natalie Wülfing, Psychoanalytical Notebooks, Issue 21, 2010.  : …, Lacan offered a series of rereadings of the Studies on Hysteria, but they approached it from the opposite angle. This path can be followed over a year long sequence of punctuations between 9 March 1976 and 26 February 1977 (the date of his Brussels lecture on hysteria).

See  Remarks on Hysteria (Brussels): 26th February 1977: Jacques Lacan or here

Bottom p140: To the best of my knowledge, there is just one direct reference to hysteria in Seminar XXIII. It is a friendly acknowledgment, a little nudge for a friend of his, Hélène Cixous. You can find it in the seventh chapter, ….

See  Seminar XXIII: The Sinthome or Joyce and the Sinthome: 1975-1976: beginning on November 18th 1975 : Jacques Lacan or here  : There are many more than one reference to hysteria in Seminar XXIII! The seventh session was held on Wednesday 17thFebruary 1976.

From Seminar XXIII : 9thMarch 1976 : pVIII 1 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : This is what I would like you to get to know, or to recall for those who know it already, that there is someone that I am very fond of called Helene Cixous.  This is written with a Cat the beginning, and it ends with an S. Here it is pronounced Cixous.

So then the aforesaid Helene Cixous had already produced, it appears – for my part it had remained a little vague in my memory – had already produced, it appears in the out-of-print issue of Lilterature, to remind myself of it, I was completely ignorant of it, that I had produced Litturaterre.[See Lituraterre: 12th May 1971: Jacques Lacan  or here]  In this out-of-print issue, which will not make it easy for you to rediscover it, except for those who already have it, she produced a little note on Dora. And then, [pVIII 2] since that, she has made a play out of it, The Portrait of Dora. This is the title. A play that is on at the Petit Orsay. Namely, in an annex of the Grand Orsay. Everyone can easily imagine it. The Grand Orsay being occupied by Jean-Louis Barrault and Madeleine Renaud.

Now I did not find this Portrait of Dora too bad at all  I said what I thought of it to her that I have called Helene, ever since I have known her, and I told her that I would talk about it.

The Portrait of Dora, we are dealing with Freud’s Dora. And this indeed is why, in short, I suspect that this may interest some people in going to see how it is produced. It is produced in a real way. I mean that reality is what, the reality of rehearsals, for example, is what at the end of the day, dominated the actors. I do not know how you will appreciate it. But what is sure is that there is here something quite striking. What is at stake is hysteria, Dora’s hysteria, precisely, and it happens that she is not the best hysteric in the cast.  She who is the best hysteric is playing a different role, but she does not show at all her hysterical virtues. Dora herself, anyway, the one who plays her role, shows them not badly; at least this is my feeling. There is also someone in it who acts, who plays the role of Freud. He is, of course, very embarrassed. And he is very embarrassed and, and this can be seen, in short, he tackles it with great precaution. And it is all the less successful, at least for him, because he is not an actor, he offered himself up to do that. So then, he is afraid the whole time of changing Freud.  Anyway, this can be seen in his delivery. Anyway, the best thing I can tell you, is to go and see it. What you will see is something that, all the same, is marked by this precaution of Freud, of the actor Freud.

So then, there results, on the whole, in short, something which, which is quite curious when all is said and done. One has there [pVIII 3] hysteria – I think that this will strike you, but after all, perhaps you will appreciate it differently- we have here hysteria which I could describe as incomplete. I mean that hysteria, has always been, anyway since Freud, has always been two.  And there, one sees this hysteria being in a way reduced to a state that I would call – and that is why moreover that in short this will not go too badly with what I have to explain to you – in a way to its material state.

It lacks this element which has been added on for some time, and since before Freud, when all is said and done, namely, how it ought to be comprehended. This produces something very striking and, and very instructive.  It is a kind of rigid hysteria.

P141 :

Footnote 10 : Lacan, J., “The Signification of the Phallus”, translated Alan Sheridan, Écrits, A Selection, 1977, Tavistock, London, p281-291. : This is quite different from the way that the phallus is represented in the Écrits. In the text that sets out the classic position, “Die Bedeutung des Phallus”, the phallus exists as a way of vouching for signification, and even for all the effects of signification.

See The Meaning (or Signification) of the Phallus (Munich): 9th May 1958 : Jacques Lacan  or here :

P282 of Alan Sheridan’s translation (probably) : It would be mere trickery to invoke in this case some hereditary amnesic trait, not only because such a trait is in itself debatable, but because it leaves the problem unsolved: namely, what is the link between the murder of the father and the pact of the primordial law, if it is included in that law that castration should be the punishment for incest?

It is only on the basis of the clinical facts that any discussion can be fruitful. These facts reveal a relation of the subject to the phallus that is established without regard to the anatomical difference of the sexes, and which, by this very fact, makes any interpretation of this relation especially difficult in the case of women. This problem may be treated under the following four headings:

(1) from this ‘why’, the little girl considers herself if only momentarily, as castrated, in the sense of deprived of the phallus, by someone, in the first instance by her mother, an important point, and then by her father, but in such a way that one must recognize in it a transference in the analytic sense of the term;

(2) from this ‘why’, in a more primordial sense, the mother is considered, by both sexes, as possessing the phallus, as the phallic mother;

(3) from this ‘why’, correlatively,
the significance of castration in fact takes on its (clinically manifest) full weight as far as the formation of symptoms is concerned, only on the basis of its discovery as castration of the mother;

(4) these three problems lead, finally to the question of the reason, in development, for the phallic stage. We know that in this term Freud specifies the first genital maturation: on the one hand, it would seem to be characterized by the imaginary dominance of the phallic attribute and by masturbatory jouissance and, on the other, it localizes this jouissance for the woman in the clitoris, which is thus raised to the function of the phallus. It therefore seems to exclude in both sexes, until the end of this stage, that is, to the decline of the Oedipal stage, all instinctual mapping of the vagina as locus of genital penetration.

This ignorance is suspiciously like méconnaissance in the technical sense of the term – all the more so in that it is sometimes quite false.

Footnote 11 : Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XXIII, Le sinthome, op. cit. p105. : … allowed Lacan to say, “it might interest a few of you to go ad see how it has been put together. It is put together in a real fashion.

See Footnote above – bottom of p140 : From Seminar XXIII : 9thMarch 1976 : pVIII 2 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : And this indeed is why, in short, I suspect that this may interest some people in going to see how it is produced. It is produced in a real way. I mean that reality is what, the reality of rehearsals, for example, is what at the end of the day, dominated the actors. I do not know how you will appreciate it. But what is sure is that there is here something quite striking.

Footnote 12 :Ibid. p106  : Lacan accentuates the fact that the show “is about hysteria”. : See Footnote above : From Seminar XXIII : 9thMarch 1976 : pVIII 2-3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : One has there hysteria – I think that this will strike you, …

Footnote 13 :Ibid. :  He notes that the actress who plays Dora is somewhat in a bind, since Freud’s Dora “does not know the virtues of a hysteric at all.”

See Footnote above : pVIII 2 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : But what is sure is that there is here something quite striking. What is at stake is hysteria, Dora’s hysteria, precisely, and it happens that she is not the best hysteric in the cast.  She who is the best hysteric is playing a different role, but she does not show at all her hysterical virtues. Dora herself, anyway, the one who plays her role, shows them not badly; at least this is my feeling.

Footnote 14 :Ibid. : The actor who plays Freud is in even more of a bind, “he really looks rather bothered, and you can hear it in his delivery.” The upshot of this is that, ‘We are faced with a hysteria [….] that I could call incomplete.  I mean that hysteria has always been in twos, or has been since Freud, anyway. Here we can see it reduced to what I might call a material state.

See Footnote above : pVIII 2 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : There is also someone in it who acts, who plays the role of Freud. He is, of course, very embarrassed. And he is very embarrassed and, and this can be seen, in short, he tackles it with great precaution. And it is all the less successful, at least for him, because he is not an actor, he offered himself up to do that. So then, he is afraid the whole time of changing Freud.  Anyway, this can be seen in his delivery. Anyway, the best thing I can tell you, is to go and see it. What you will see is something that, all the same, is marked by this precaution of Freud, of the actor Freud.

So then, there results, on the whole, in short, something which, which is quite curious when all is said and done. One has there [pVIII 3] hysteria – I think that this will strike you, but after all, perhaps you will appreciate it differently- we have here hysteria which I could describe as incomplete. I mean that hysteria, has always been, anyway since Freud, has always been two.  And there, one sees this hysteria being in a way reduced to a state that I would call – and that is why moreover that in short this will not go too badly with what I have to explain to you – in a way to its material state.

P142

Footnote 15 : ibid. : This is why this is going to sit rather well with what I’m about to explain to you. The play lacks the element that was added some tie ago – before Freud, when all is said and done – namely, the way in which hysteria has to be understood.

See Footnote above :  pVIII 3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : And there, one sees this hysteria being in a way reduced to a state that I would call – and that is why moreover that in short this will not go too badly with what I have to explain to you – in a way to its material state.

It lacks this element which has been added on for some time, and since before Freud, when all is said and done, namely, how it ought to be comprehended.

Footnote 17 : Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XXIII, Le sinthome, op. cit. p106-107 : To understand what Lacan means by the term “rigid hysteria” we have to keep reading Seminar XXIII. Here he presents a “rigid” Borromean chain. :

See Seminar XXIII : 9thMarch 1976 : from pVII 4 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation.

P143

Footnote 18 : ibid., p109. : Lacan presents the “rigid” status of the chain not only in this rectangular form but also in the form of his modified simulation of an armillary sphere.

See pVIII 5 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Figure VIII-5. The difference there is between this Borromean chain and what is always drawn in an armillary sphere when one has it, when one tries to make it travel on three levels, what can be called respectively transversal, vertical (sagittal), horizontal. We have never seen an armillary sphere being represented in the way in which this knot this Borromean knot, is presented.

P144

3rdpara? :his search for a ‘beyond of the unconscious’. He dares to translate the Freudian Unbewussteby l’Une-bévue,“the unary blunder’, which in French is a homophony rather than a translation, but an exceedingly well-founded one because the title, L’insu que sait…, is an astounding play on words: the unconscious as an insu, an “unknown”, but which se sait, which is known somewhere.

See Footnote 5 : See  Seminar XXIV : ‘L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre’ : 1976-1977 : begins 16th November 1976 : Jacques Lacan  or here

P1 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 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-bévue. 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.

Footnote 20 :Lacan, J., 16 November 1976 lesson of Le séminaire XXIV, op. cit. : In the first lesson of Seminar XXIV, Lacan poses questions that link up directly with the seventh chapter of Seminar XXIII. ‘Identification is what crystallises in an identity. :

Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 :  p2 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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. 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.

P145 :

2nd paragraph : An identification constituted by participation. …. :

Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 :  p2 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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.

Footnote 21 : Freud, S., Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol XVlll, transt. J. Strachey, Hogarth Press, London,1955, pp.106-7 : The example that Freud gives in the seventh chapter of Massenpsychologie is that Dora’s aphonia, which was an identification with what she took to be the jouissance of her father performing cunnilingus on Frau K.

Para 4? :The example Freud gives is the girls’ boarding school. : This is the same reference as Footnote 21 to Group Psychology : 1921.

Last para :The trait that appeared in Seminar IX takes on an altogether special weight.

See  Seminar IX: Identification: 1961-1962: begins November 15th 1961: Jacques Lacan  or here

P146

Footnote 22 : Lacan. J., 16 November 1976, lesson f Le séminaire XXIV, op. cit., p6 : He asks, “with what, then, does one identify at the end of analysis? Does one identify with one’s unconscious? I don’t believe so.” He says, “the unconscious remains the Other”, and “I don’t see how one can give meaning to the unconscious”.

Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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.

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?

Footnote 23 : ibid.  : “I have stated that the symptom can be the sexual partner.”

Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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.

Footnote 24 : ibid. : I have stated that the symptom can be the sexual partner. … It is the only form of acquaintance, taken in the sense that it has been stated that a man has only to sleep with a woman for it to be said that he knows her, or vice-versa. :

See Footnote 23.

P147

Footnote 25 : ibid. : As – despite making an effort – it is a fact that I am not a woman, …. But all the same it cannot go so far as for the woman to believe the man. :

See Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1975 : p3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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. It is very possible that it may go, that it may go very far.

Footnote 26 :ibid. : Even when children are involved, children remain a parasite for woman. They are a parasite, a parasitism. In a woman’s uterus, the child is a parasite. Everything points in this direction, up to and including the fact that things can go very wrong between the parasite and the belly.

See p3 of Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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.

Footnote 27 : ibid. :  So, what then does it mean to be acquainted with something? To be acquainted with one’s symptom means to know how to get along with it, to have a way with it, to know how to handle it.

See p3 of Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p4 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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.

Footnote 28 : ibid. : What man knows how to do with his image corresponds to this in some respects, and it allows us “to entertain the way in which people get by with their symptom”.

See Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p4 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : ….  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 Ornicaron the split of 1953. I would surely have been much more discreet if the split of ‘53 had not happened.

P148

Footnote 29 : ibid. : Lord Kelvin considered that science was something in which a model functioned, and which, with the help of this model, enabled one to predict results of how the real functions. :

See  Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p4 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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

Footnote 30 : ibid. : So, in science, “one turns to the imaginary in order to form an idea of the real.”

See Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p4 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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. 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.

Footnote 31 : ibid. p7. : I realised that to consistmeant that the body needed to be spoken about, that there is a body of the imaginary, a body of the symbolic – which islalangue– and a body of the real, and we don’t know how the latter emerges.

See Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p4 to 5 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 [p5] 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.

P149

Footnote 32 : ibid. p9.
 : […]hysterical identification, then the loving identification with the father, and then the form of identification that I shall call neutral, the one that is neither one nor the other, the identification with a trait […] that I called any old trait.

See Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : p11 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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?

Footnote 33 : Lacan, J., 14 December 1976 lesson of Le séminaire XXIV, op. cit., p.10.
: any old trait “that is simply the same”. For the real, the important thing is that it should be the samein material terms: “the notion of matter is fundamental in that it found sameness.”

See Seminar XXIV : 14thDecember 1976 : p12-13 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 fundamental [p13] by the fact that it founds the same. Anything that is not founded on matter is matériel-ne-ment[*] a fraud.

* Condensing ‘material’ and ‘does not lie’.

Footnote 34 : ibid.
 : On the other hand, says Lacan, the signifier forms a series, in the opposition between sameness and otherness, between S1and S2. There are a series of others, units, “between which a blunder is always possible.

See Seminar XXIV : 14thDecember 1976 : p13 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : See above : then Figure II-1 : then the following (it is not possible to match the version edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, as used in this text, with the translation from a transcription of Jacques Lacan speaking.) : Material presents itself to us as corps-sistance[note; Condensing ‘body’ and ‘consistency’], 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.

2nd para : Lacan’s unconscious is made up of une-bévues, “ unary blunders”, which are unary signifiers that always give rise to equivocation.

See Footnote 3rdpara : p144 : for the link to Freud.  Seminar XXIV : 16thNovember 1976 : at the beginning of the seminar.

3rd para : In “Die Bedeutung de Phallus”, Lacan situate equivocation on the basis of Frege’s distinction between meaning and reference. You can say that Venus is the “morning star” or the “evening star”, but it refers to the same Venus. These two descriptions, these two significations, are both signs of Venus. Venus is a planet out there in the solar system, whilst in language one can say “morning star” or “evening star”.

See The Meaning (or Signification) of the Phallus (Munich): 9th May 1958 : Jacques Lacan  or here : P189 of Alan Sheridan’s translation (probably, this is difficult to trace exactly) : Clinical experience has shown us that this test of the desire of the Other is decisive not in the sense that the subject learns by it whether or nor he has a real phallus, but in the sense that he learns that the mother does not have it. This is the moment of the experience without which no symptomatic consequence (phobia) or structural-consequence (Penisneid) relating to the castration complex can take effect. Here is signed the conjunction of desire, in that the phallic signifier is its mark, with the threat or nostalgia of lacking it.

Of course, its future depends on the law introduced by the father into this sequence.

But one may, simply by reference to the function of the phallus, indicate the structures that will govern the relations between the sexes.

Let us say that these relations will turn around a ‘to be’ and a ‘to have’, which, by referring to a signifier, the phallus, have the opposed effect, on the one hand, of giving reality to the subject in this signifier, and, on the other, of derealizing the relations to be signified.

This is brought about by the intervention of a ‘to seem’ that replaces the ‘to have’, in order to protect it on the one side, and to mask its lack
in the other, and which has the effect of projecting in their entirety – the ideal or typical manifestations of the behaviour of each sex, including the act of copulation itself into the comedy.

These ideals take on new vigour from the demand that they are capable of satisfying, which is always a demand for love, with its complement of the reduction of desire to demand.

3rd paragraph : In Seminar XXIII, “the fallace that vouches for the real” is very much on the side of the sign.

See Seminar XXIII : 18thNovember 1975 : p7 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation (probably) : .  Naturally, excuse my use of this word, something more is needed.  But since his prick was a little craven, as I might say, it was his art that supplied for his phallic bearing.  And it is ever thus. The phallus is the conjunction of what I called this parasite, which is the little piece of prick in question, it is the conjunction of this with the function of the word.  And this is why his art is the real warrant of his phallus.

Or Seminar XXIII :  16thDecember 1975 : pIII 13 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : On the other hand, the enjoyment  described as phallic is situated there, at the conjunction of the Symbolic with the Real. It is in as much that in the subject which is supported by the parlêtre in the sense that this is what I designate as being the unconscious, there is -and it is in this field that phallic enjoyment is inscribed – there is the power, the power  in short summoned, supported, the power of marrying what is involved in a certain enjoyment which, by the fact, by the fact of this word itself, marries an enjoyment experienced, experienced by the fact of the parêetre, as a parasitic enjoyment, and which is the one described as of the phallus. This indeed is the one that I inscribe here as a balance to what is involved in meaning, it is the locus of that which, through the parletre, is designated in conscience as power.

Footnote 35 : Lacan, J., Television, transl. D. Hollier, R. Krauss, A. Michelson, Television/A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment, Norton, New York/London, 1990, p.6 [where cisaille is translated as “shearing”]. : The consequence of this is a presentation of the body of the parlêtre, of the living being, without bringing in hysterical identification which blends symptom and meaning. The body of the hysteric subject is “clipped” by the signifier, because hysterical symptoms present themselves as patterns of loss.

See Television: 31st January 1974 : Jacques Lacan  or  here : p10 of Denis Hollier’s translation as published in October : Which allows for the grounding of the unconscious in the ex-sistence of one more subject for the soul. For the soul as the assumed sum of the body’s functions. A most problematic sum, despite the fact that from Aristotle to Uexküll, it has been postulated as though with one voice, and it is still what biologists presuppose, whether they know it or not.

In fact the subject of the unconscious is only in touch with the soul via the body, by introducing thought into it: here contradicting Aristotle. Man does not think with his soul, as the Philosopher imagined.

He thinks as a consequence of the fact that a structure, that of language – the word implies it – a structure carves up his body, a structure that has nothing to do with anatomy. Witness the hysteric. This shearing happens to the soul through the obsessional symptom: a thought that burdens the soul, that it doesn’t know what to do with.
Thought is in disharmony with the soul.

P150

Footnote 36 :Lacan, J., “Joyce le Symptôme [II]”, Autres écrits, op. cit., p569 : The body presents itself as an organisation of the real, the symbolic and the imaginary, around one or two holes, and it holds together by itself. The toric body is a representation of the body of the living being beyond the hysterical body. From this perspective, one can distinguish between the symptom as an “event of the body” and the hysterical symptom.

See Joyce the Symptôm (Sinthôme) I & II : 16th June 1975 : Jacques Lacan  or here (translations of both versions now available) : From Adrian Price’s translation : Joyce is the first to get the fancy footstool work right, having raised the escabeau to the degree of logical consistence at which he maintains it, the apple of his art, as I have just said. Let’s leave the symptom to be what it is: an event of the body, bound to how: y’ain’t without it, y’got it from thin air, y’air it, an aria y’ain’t without. Once in a while that gets sung, and Joyce doesn’t hold back from doing just that. So it is, individuals whom Aristotle takes for bodies, may be brought to bear as no more than symptoms themselves relative to other bodies. A woman, for instance, is another body’s symptom. Should this not be the case, she remains the symptom that is said to be hysteric, by which one means last.

Footnote 37 : Lacan, J., 14 December 1976 lesson of Le séminaire XXIV, L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre, in Ornicar?, Issue 14, Spring 1978, p5 : Lacan puts this as follows : The difference between hysterics and me […] is that hysterics are supported in their rod-like form by an armature. This armature is distinct from their consciousness. It is their love for their father.

See Seminar XXIV : 14thDecember 1976 : p16-17 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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.

Diagram Figure II-3

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. 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.

Footnote 38 : Lacan, J., 11 January 1977 lesson of Le séminaire XIV, L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre, in Ornicar?, Issue 14, Spring 1978, p5 : But this is what is no longer necessary in the aforementioned “rigid hysteria” in the Cixous style. ‘Freud only had a few ideas about what the unconscious is, but when you read him it seems that one can infer that he thought it was made up of effects of the signifier. [,,,] He was not at ease, and he did not have a way with knowledge. That is what we call feeble-mindedness, to which I must say I am no exception, because I have to cope with the same material as everyone else, and because this material is what inhabits us.

See Seminar XXIV : 11th January 1977 : p42 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Let us try to define what this can mean to us, a Knowledge. What is at stake, in Knowledge, is what we can call signifier-effects (effets de signifiant).

I have here a yoke that I must say terrorised me. It is a collection which has come out under the title of La philosophie en effet. Philosophy in effect, in signifier- effects, it is precisely what I am trying to get out of unscathed, I mean that I do not believe that I am doing philosophy, but one always does more of it than one believes, there is nothing more slippery than this domain; you also do it, you too have your moments, and it is certainly not what you have most to rejoice about.

Freud therefore had only a few ideas about what the unconscious was. But it seems to me, in reading him, that one can deduce that he thought it was signifier- effects. Man – we have to call a certain generality by that name, a generality in which one cannot say that some stand out; Freud had nothing transcendent about him: he was a little doctor who did, good God, what he could in terms of what we call curing, which does not take us very far – man therefore, since I spoke about man, man can scarcely escape this business of Knowledge. This is dictated to him by what I called the signifier-effects, and he is not at ease: he does not know how to ‘deal with’ (‘faire avec’) Knowledge. This is what is called his mental debility from which, I must say, I do not except myself. I do not except myself simply because I have to deal with the same material, with the same material as everyone else and that this material, is what dwells in us. With this material, he does not know how ‘to deal’ (‘y faire’). It is the same thing as this ‘dealing with’ that I spoke about just now, but these nuances of the tongue are very important. This y faire cannot be said in every language. Knowing how to deal with is something different to know-how. It means to get on with it. But this ‘y faire’indicates that one does not really capture the thing, in short, in a concept.

P151

Footnote 40 : Lacan, J., “Joyce le Symptôme [II]”, op. cit., p569 : Let’s leave the symptom to what it is: an event of the body, linked to the fact that : one has it [….]

So it is that individuals, which Aristotle takes for bodies, may themselves be nothing but symptoms relative to other bodies. A Woman, for instance, is another body’s symptom.

See Footnote 36 above for Adrian Price’s translation, availableJoyce the Symptôm (Sinthôme) I & II : 16th June 1975 : Jacques Lacan  or here  (translations of both versions now available)

Footnote 41 : ibid. : This sentence defines the womanly position as an anti-hysterical symptom. This definition of the womanly position enables it to be distinguished from hysteria. Should this not be the case, “she remains the so-called hysteric symptom […]. Which means, paradoxically, that she is only interested in some other symptom.”

See Joyce the Symptôm (Sinthôme) I & II : 16th June 1975 : Jacques Lacan  or here (translations of both versions now available) : from Adrian Price’s translation : Should this not be the case, she remains the symptom that is said to be hysteric, by which one means last. [Dominick Hecq’s translation : by which one means the ultimate symptom.] Specifically, and paradoxically, that only another symptom takes her interest: it only falls in line accordingly last-but-one, and to boot is not a woman’s privilege, though it can readily be understood taking full measure of the lot of LOM qua parlêtre, with which she symptomises herself. It was with hysterics, hysteric symptoms of women (Not all like that, no doubt, since it is by being not all (like that) that they are noted as being women chez LOM, to wit, where y’ain’t without it), it was with symptom-hysterics that analysis was able to find a footing in the experience.

Footnote 42 : Lacan, J., “On Hysteria”, op. cit. [Translation modified]. : In Brussels, Lacan comments on this as follows: ‘Where have they gone, those hysterics of yesteryear, those marvellous women, the likes of Anna O. and Emmy von N.? Not only did they play a certain role, they played a certain social role. […] What has replaced these bygone hysterical symptoms today? Is it not the case that hysterics have shifted place in the social field?’ And there he asks: “Might it not be the case that psychoanalytic zaniness has replaced hysteria?”

See Remarks on Hysteria (Brussels): 26th February 1977: Jacques Lacan or here  : From Jack W. Stone’s translation : … Where have they gone, the hysterics of yesteryear, those marvelous women, the Anna O.’s, the Emmy von N’s . . . ? Not only did they play a certain role, they play a certain [translation amended] social role, but when Freud took to listening to them, it was they who permitted the birth of psychoanalysis. It was from listening to them that Freud inaugurated an entirely new mode of human relation. What replaces those hysteric symptoms of old? Is not hysteria displaced in the social field? Would not the psychoanalytic craziness have replaced it?

Footnote 43 : ibid. : By bringing the symbolic to the fore, psychoanalysis has dismantled the artifices of the hysterical symptom, but it has also come to occupy the place of the bond it formed. Lacan further notes that : ‘The unconscious traces its origins back to the fact that the hysteric doesn’t know what she is saying, when truly and verily she is saying something through the words that fail her. The unconscious is a sediment of language.’

See Remarks on Hysteria (Brussels): 26th February 1977: Jacques Lacan or here     :From Jack W. Stone’s translation : That Freud was affected by what hysterics told him, this now appears to us certain. The unconscious originates from the fact that the hysteric does not know what she is saying, when she is well and good saying something by words that fail her [qui lui manque]. The unconscious is a sediment of language.

Footnote 44 : ibid. : Lacan sets out a horizon for psychoanalysis which is not a hysterical horizon but the real as a “borderline idea”, the idea of that which holds no meaning.

See Remarks on Hysteria (Brussels): 26th February 1977: Jacques Lacan or here  : From Jack W. Stone’s translation : The real is in extreme opposition to our practice. It is an idea, a limit [borderline] idea of what has no sense. Sense is what we operate with in our practice: interpretation. The real is this vanishing point like the object of science (and not of connaissance which is more than criticizable), the real is the object of science.

Our practice is a swindle, at least considered beginning from the moment we start from this vanishing point.

Footnote 45 : Lacan, J., 14 December 1976 lesson of Le séminaire XXIV, op. cit. p15 : … the idea of that which holds no meaning. This is what led Jacques-Alain Miller to qualify this real as Lacan’s dream, something like a borderline [JE suggests limit?] idea, but one that is necessary to counterbalance a slippery slope in psychoanalysis, a delusional slope in psychoanalysis: the slope that leads to “a preference given aside from all else to the unconscious.”

See Seminar XXIV : ‘L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre’ : 1976-1977 : begins 16th November 1976 : Jacques Lacan  or here : Seminar XXIV : 14thDecember 1976 : P23 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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. 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.

Footnote 46 : Lacan, J., The seminar, Book XX, Encore, On Feminine Sexuality: The Limits of Love and Knowledge, transl. B. Fink, Norton, New York/London, 1998, p23-24 : In those years, Lacan was touching on something of a real that, for him, was not a scientific real, but the real of “enjoying substance”, and this led him to deem it that much more urgent to protect psychoanalysis from its delusional slope and from this “preference given aside from all else to the unconscious”.

See Seminar XX: Encore: 1972 – 1973: from 21st November 1972 : Jacques Lacan or here : Seminar XX : 19th December 1972 : pIII 16 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : And that enjoying has this fundamental property that it is in short the body of the One that enjoys a part of the body of the Other. But that part also enjoys; that pleases the other more or less, but it is a fact that he cannot remain indifferent to it. And even when it happens that something is produced that goes beyond what I have just described marked with every signifying ambiguity, namely, that the enjoyment of the body is a genitive which, according as you make it objective or subjective, has this Sadean flavour that I have just added a touch to, or on the contrary ecstatic, suggestive which says that, in short, it is the Other that enjoys.

There is here, of course, only a level which was well localised and most elementary, as regards what is involved in enjoyment, the enjoyment which I put forward the last time as not being a sign of love.

This is what will have to be sustained, and naturally this will lead us to the level of phallic enjoyment. And that what I am properly calling the enjoyment of the Other, in so far as here it is only symbolised, is again something quite different, namely, this not-all that I will have to articulate.

Footnote 48 : Lacan, J., 14 December 1976 (wrong date) lesson of Le séminaire XXIV, op. cit. p8 [the Preface in question was written by Jacques Derrida]. : Here, in Seminar XXIV, he cites an example of this tendency: … These neo-Ferenczian analysts, if you will, from France, set about following the Wolf Man down his delusional path by tracing all the echoes of the signifiers that marked him, through all the homophonies and equivocations …. These are the resonances that they call a Verbier, … This is the object that Lacan finds, strictly speaking, delusional: ‘Despite my having got things going down this path, I think that neither the Preface nor the book is really in the right tone. In the delusional genre […] this is an extreme case, and I’m terrified at the feeling that I might be more or less responsible for having opened the floodgates.

See Seminar XXIV : ‘L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre’ : 1976-1977 : begins 16th November 1976 : Jacques Lacan  or here : Seminar XXIV : 11thJanuary 1977 : P46 to 47 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation :  It is a scientific delusion therefore, and one is expecting that it will bring forth a science but that does not mean that analytic practice will ever bring forth this science.

It is a science that has all the less chance of maturing in that it is antinomical; and all the same, by the use that we make of it, we know that it has its relationships between science and logic. There is a thing which, I should say astonishes me, astonishes me still more than the broadcasting, the broadcasting which I know well is happening, the broadcasting of what is called my teaching, my ideas – because that means that I have ideas – the broadcasting of my teaching to this which makes its way under the name of Institut de Psychanalyse, the thing that [p47] astonishes me still more, is not that Le verbier de l’homme aux loups, not simply that it sails ahead, but that it produces offspring, the fact is that someone whom I did not know – to tell the truth, I think he is in analysis – whom I did not know was in analysis – but this is a simple hypothesis – someone called Jacques Derrida who writes a preface for this verbier. He writes an absolutely fervent enthusiastic preface in which I believe I can see a trembling which is linked – I do not know which of these two analysts he has dealings with – what is certain, is that he couples them; I do not find, I must say, despite the fact that I launched things along this path, I do not find this book, nor this preface to have the right tone. As a kind of delusion, I am speaking to you like that, I cannot say that it is in the hope that you will go and look at it; I would even prefer you to forgo it, but anyway I know well that when all is said and done you are going to rush to Aubier- Flammarion, even if only to see what I call an extreme limit. It is certain that this is combined with the more and more mediocre desire I have of talking to you. What is combined, is that I am scared of that which in short I feel myself more or less responsible for, namely, to have opened the floodgates of something about which I could just as well have shut up. I could just as well have reserved for myself alone the satisfaction of playing on the unconscious without explaining the farce of it, without saying that it is by this yoke of the signifier-effects that it operates. I could just as well have kept it to myself, since in short if I had not really been forced, I would never have done any teaching.

References:

Radiophonie: recorded on 9th April 1970 : transmitted 5th, 10th, 19th, and 26th June 1970 : Jacques Lacan or here

The Mistaking of the Subject Supposed to Know (Naples): 14th December 1967: Jacques Lacan or here

Seminar XXIV : ‘L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre’ : 1976-1977 : begins 16th November 1976 : Jacques Lacan  or here

Seminar XXIII: The Sinthome or Joyce and the Sinthome: 1975-1976: beginning on November 18th 1975 : Jacques Lacan or here

Preface to the English-language edition of Seminar XI : 17th May 1976 : Jacques Lacan  or here

Remarks on Hysteria (Brussels): 26th February 1977: Jacques Lacan or here

Lituraterre: 12th May 1971: Jacques Lacan  or here

The Meaning (or Signification) of the Phallus (Munich): 9th May 1958 : Jacques Lacan  or here

Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego : 1921 : Sigmund Freud : Chapter 7 : See texts by Sigmund Freud here or you will find Freud’s paper in English with the original German text laid out in the right hand column : published by www.Freud2Lacan.com: available here

Seminar IX: Identification: 1961-1962: begins November 15th 1961: Jacques Lacan  or here

Television: 31st January 1974 : Jacques Lacan  or  here

Joyce the Symptôm (Sinthôme) I & II : 16th June 1975 : Jacques Lacan  or here

Seminar XX: Encore: 1972 – 1973: from 21st November 1972 : Jacques Lacan or here

Related texts

The symptom in the perspective of the speaking body in civilisation (audio) : 19th May 2016 (London) : Éric Laurent or here

The Unconscious and the Body Event (Extracts) : July 2015 : Éric Laurent (Interview) or here

The Unconscious and the Body Event : the full interview : July 2015 : Éric Laurent or here

The Logic and Surprises of Supervision at the Time of the Parlêtre : 7th March 2015 (Italy) : Éric Laurent or here

The Stepladder (Escabeau) and Freudian Sublimation. From forcing to manipulation : A reading of «Joyce the Symptom» : (Paris) 3rd February 2015 : Éric Laurent or here

On the real in a psychoanalysis : 17th October 2013 : Éric Laurent or here

Big Bang ! (LQ 21) : 9th September 2011 : Eric Laurent  or here

 

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Earl’s Court, London

 

Further texts

Of the clinic : here

Ethics : here

Lacanian Transmission : here

Some Lacanian History : here

Topology : here

From LW working groups : here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud : here

By Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here

By Éric Laurent here